HSR and Property Values
One of the underlying motives behind the HSR opponents – especially the Peninsula NIMBYs – is their belief that HSR will crash their property values, and that the highest priority of government is to protect their current property values. In short, whatever the needs of the rest of the state, all are secondary to preservation of the existing appraised value of a Peninsula homeowner living near the Caltrain ROW.
Of course, that belief is simply absurd. Nobody has a right to expect a government guarantee of their property value. A house is a house – if one wants to treat it as an investment, then they should act like it’s an investment and accept the fact that sometimes an asset loses value. Besides, it’s really difficult to get worked up about a prosperous homeowner in Atherton or Menlo Park – home to some of the highest property values in the state – losing some of that value when so many Californians have been foreclosed on and seen their finances wiped out in places like Stockton, Moreno Valley, and Salinas due to the bursting of the housing bubble. Almost everyone has seen their values decline. Join the club.
But obviously many people DO base their assessment of land use decisions on its perceived impact on their property values, and that’s true of high speed rail. Some on the Peninsula are convinced that the HSR project will destroy their property values – that any aerial structure would make it impossible to sell their homes, as one commenter whined yesterday on this blog. Yet if you look at other Bay Area cities, like Albany or Oakland’s Rockridge neighborhood, you’d see a thriving community where property values have held up pretty well despite a passenger train aerial nearby (or in the case of Rockridge, where the BART aerial is sandwiched between the massive Highway 24 freeway structure).
More importantly, the “omg HSR will destroy my property values” argument ignores some rather compelling evidence that suggests HSR will only benefit and improve property values for those living near the ROW no matter what vertical alignment is chosen. Surely the elimination of diesel fumes and loud horns can only send prices upward, as would the elimination of long traffic backups. Homes near the ROW would become more attractive to families with children, as the very real risk of death posed by at-grade tracks would be eliminated.
Grade-separated passenger rail on the Peninsula ROW also would provide a big long-term boost to property values by improving the speed and frequency of rail service. This is something that the city of Palo Alto is well aware of, judging by a recent survey of the available research posted to the city’s website in July. The city found several studies, including some from California, that demonstrate a clear premium for homes located close to a commuter rail station. In other words, while Palo Alto might not see much direct land value benefit from HSR, the fact is that we’re not talking about an HSR project – we’re talking about a Peninsula Rail Project that provides HSR and major improvements to Caltrain at the same time.
With a grade-separated railway, Caltrain becomes faster and can provide more frequent service, a huge benefit to Palo Alto residents. A mid-Peninsula HSR station located at Redwood City would be of some benefit, and even if there’s not a mid-Peninsula station, Palo Alto would still be a single transfer away from the San José Diridon HSR station – providing reduced benefits to Palo Alto, obviously, but still better than nothing. The same holds true for every other city along the line, except Millbrae and SF which will get much greater benefits by having an HSR station.
Those who view property values in the obsolete lens of the 20th century may not recognize this premium. They’re convinced that everyone will always drive to work as they do today, despite rising oil prices and already-severe congestion. Left unchecked, either rising oil prices or increasing congestion (perhaps both) will slowly strangle property values on the Peninsula, as it becomes increasingly difficult to access jobs and other resources from the Peninsula.
Still, the belief that HSR will kill property values is out there, as this article from the Menlo Park Patch explains:
One local independent realtor, Leannah Hunt, said the concern is not hypothetical: declining property values can be seen today.
“Obviously it is a great concern, absolutely,” said Hunt. She said she has already seen one property deal fall through because an appraiser noted a property along the rail corridor as being in an “area of diminishing value,” and that the buyer was subsequently unable to secure a loan for that reason.
“It’s the first time I’ve seen an appraiser in conjunction with an application for a loan for a property in the rail corridor area… that the appraiser stated that it was an area of diminishing value,” she said.
As anecdotal evidence goes, this is particularly vague. The implication is that the HSR project is causing the “diminishing value” – but it could just as easily be the loud train horns and diesel fumes that are causing any diminishing value. It could also be the nationwide housing slump – technically the entire United States is “an area of diminishing value.”
And it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you get enough people arguing that HSR will crash property values, then the proposal will indeed crash property values. That’s what a market is – it’s not some autonomous law of physics, but a collection of human opinions. Still, there’s no reason to believe that any declining values near the ROW are due to the HSR proposal – and let’s not forget that realtors have an incentive to find a scapegoat for a lower sale value or a sale that fell through entirely.
That all being said, I think there is a legitimate way in which the proposed rail project could hurt property values, and Nadia Naik explains it pretty well:
Nadia Naik, a co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, agreed that if an EIR is adopted in December, but construction is delayed for years, property values would be jeopardized.
“Any plan that is hammered out and is not likely to be implemented any time soon is a concern,” said Naik. “You don’t want to be told you’re living next to the great wall of china for the next 30 years and it never gets built.”
It’s hard to argue with this. It’s not the vertical alignment that’s the problem, but the uncertainty. We see this across the state with freeway projects – Caltrans buys up the ROW, but for whatever reason doesn’t proceed with the project immediately. The adjacent properties steadily lose value because of the uncertainty about what’s going to happen – will a project be built or won’t it? Housing markets are generally able to quickly price in an infrastructure project once it is known what the project will look like and when it will be completed, but uncertainty is not the friend of any home value.
Still, that isn’t an argument for not doing HSR – it’s instead an argument for quickly resolving this one way or the other, which is what I think Nadia was trying to say here. Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities should stop trying to delay the HSR process with lawsuits and resolutions and should instead start working more constructively to determine the vertical alignments. That’s good for property values, and it also just so happens to be what the public wants anyway.
Duh! Homes all across California have lost value, Some must have rocks made of NY Schist for brains and that’s some pretty dense rock, Glaciers from the last Ice Age only scratched It.
Are those lies never going to end? Fact is, cities are built along train corridors. It has always been like that. And it is fact that the property values close to major HSR stations will actually explode. Thousands of stores will try to get a piece of the cake. Millions of passengers would pass their stores. Hotels and restaurants, too.
Get real. Hsr aerials will create a corridor of blight wherever they are erected. Just another Embarcadero Freeway.
On the other hand the nimbys need to stop whining and whimpering and recognize they are under siege by PB-Palmdale. Their only genuine option is to escalate immediately to the initiative level. They will have to put their money where their mouth and start collecting signatures. If they think the initiative route is hopeless, time to cut your losses and relocate. The decline in property values will only accelerate when as the dominos of ineffectual opposition fall one by one and neighborhood decay is recognized by realists as inevitable.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:47 am
save the bucolic caltrain row from blight!
YesonHSR Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
And thats the BS about this entire project and ruining “pricless property ” outside of Atherton and a small strech in Menlo it ALL looks like this along the tracks
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:49 am
don’t let hsr blight this scenery
PeakVT Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I think you have insufficient appreciation for rusted industrial objects.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:54 am
join SASS ! and Save Our Scenic Scenery<a href="!
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:55 am
save it now
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:58 am
…but but the parking lots of chain stores and restaurants have great cultural and historical significance….
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
I wonder if California Burger is any good.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Insane BayArea housing values..these homes would be low income suburbs in most American metro regions..just because they have some insane 700,000 dollar value does not make the area beautiful.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:56 am
I think we should take a field trip to Albany, then to Rockridge, with the after-party at Zachary’s on College. Because residents along the BART aerials might take issue with the “blight” argument. Not every elevated structure is an Embarcadero Freeway.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:59 am
mmm zacharys. (insider tip- paxtis in hayes valley is better)
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Flippers and then Bi-Rite Creamery.
synonymouse Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
And I assure you that every single person living along those elevateds would be overjoyed if the structures could be replaced with subway.
Jay Taylor Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I personally think it is fine the way it is. I live in El Cerrito, and use the Ohlone greenway quite often.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
They would also be overjoyed if they won the lottery, or if the Giants won the World Series, or if someone ended world hunger. Doesn’t mean they’re unhappy that none of those things have happened. I’m not familiar with any movement in Albany to bury the BART tracks…
wu ming Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
if the peninsula plutocrats anted up and paid to bury the tracks like the far less affluent residents in downtown berkeley did, this wouldn’t even be an issue. but you guys want the poor to subsidize the rich’s real estate values for aesthetic reasons, while you complain about the taxes paid to the rest of the state. GMAFB.
BruceMcF Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Not if they had to pay for it, they wouldn’t. Given the pennies of benefit per dollar cost, it only works by TAPATEM ~ Taking Another Person’s Assets To Enrich Myself(TM) ~ just like a lot of car culture.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
There is NOTHING wrong with those areas and a Freeway is running thru there with the BART!! thats what gets me going with all this fearmongers and there 100 foot high Berlin wall BS…At this point Caltrains ROW is UGLY compared to these areas..HSR can be built with a beautiful stone facing and not just some ugly concrete..and nor should it..thats what they should be working for and the traffic and safety and noise improvments
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
But they won’t because it is just more expedient to bulldoze a dirt berm and leave it at that – particularly as the costs spiral upward.
BMF From San Diego Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Good good pizza!
Go texas Rangers!
But more seriously, the LA Expo line is building something similar to a aerial section with a wall. But, that wall is textured and looks semi nice. Will look even better when covered with ivy, even including the rats that might come with them.
Victor Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
That new rail line on the Mayors plan will be interesting to see built.
As to the Giants vs the Rangers, Go Rangers! Beat those Dumb Evil Giants!
J. Wong Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Hmm, looks like @synonymouse knows it’s hopeless to stop HSR:
“Their only genuine option is to escalate immediately to the initiative level. They will have to put their money where their mouth and start collecting signatures. If they think the initiative route is hopeless, time to cut your losses and relocate.”
They won’t have the money to run an initiative, plus it would have to be on a ballot _before_ construction starts, which is 2012. The odds are exceedingly long.
By the way, the aerial won’t look like the Embarcadero freeway, neither as tall nor as solid. I’m guessing at most 12′-20′. The Embarcadero was at least 30′ to the bottom (plus it was 2 decks).
synonymouse Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
It can only be stopped if the Jarvisites feel motivated to do the initiative. They seem to have gone into hiding. Maybe somebody made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. If it were to go to a re-vote, personally I do not think the CHSRA scheme could win no matter how much PB-Palmdale spent.
But our latter day Tammany Hall does seem to be invincible. Eventually it should morph into full-blown culturally-entrenched organized crime, if Lord Acton is correct. Californians are so naive and sheltered they couldn’t recognize graft and influence peddling if it punched them in the face. The live in the Disneyland of the mind, where berms beget gentrification and Brutalism is chic.
wu ming Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
the jarvisites haven’t won too many of their crackpot initiatives recently. why not just accept that your view is in the extreme minority, and that in a democracy, won’t end up setting policy?
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:13 am
Synonymouse, I love how you constantly think that Palmdale of all places is in charge of some huge conspiracy to build a “gold plated” but “cost cutting” boondoggle that is being shoved down PAMPAs throat. Aside from enforcing some self consistency, let’s also try to get a little perspective:
Palmdale: population 116,670, GDP per capita $16,384
PAMPA: population 96,068, GDP per capita $58,913
LA metro area: population 17.6 million, GDP per capita – somewhere in between
SF Bay Area: population 7 million, GDP per capita – somewhat higher than LA
It doesn’t seem like a conspiracy at all, the major economic and population centers will be served, and the design transparently serves its stated goals. I know you wish that California HSR simultaneously followed I5 and doesn’t get built at all, but if you take a deep breath, it seems evident that
1) the design isn’t so crazy after all,
2) that it’s just impossible to imagine that Palmdale remotely has any sway over investment decisions in California as a whole, and
3) both Palmdale and PAMPA are rounding errors compared to the population and economy of the rest of the state.
I know that Palo Alto is extremely important to the economy, and that several of the country’s largest companies are headquartered there, but the companies aren’t the ones complaining (they only stand to benefit from easier business travel). It’s a small minority of homeowners who are as much concerned with things changing as they are with any possible decline in home values. Let’s let the project also represent the other 37 million Californians and their $1.85 trillion (!) economy.
Victor Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
He won’t, But then He’s a naysayer Who’d rather do nothing outside of scream and bitch at money being spent where He doesn’t approve and the CHSRA doesn’t need His permission and neither do I. People only drive cars cause they see No alternative, Me I rode a 10 speed bicycle that I built or rode a bus until I was 19yrs old, When I had to get a car and a drivers license, But then I couldn’t haul very much food home from the store on a bicycle or the bus in a reasonable amount of time. I only drive a car today as the local bus takes too much time going all over creation to bring food home on as It’s dial a ride and there is no public transit between Barstow CA and Victorville CA, So I have to drive and own a car.
The city found several studies, including some from California, that demonstrate a clear premium for homes located close to a commuter rail station.
Marginal benefit for the towns along the Peninsula because of Prop 13. Unless they want to wait around for 40 or 50 years for the homeowner to die off and can reassess the property. The Regional Plan Association estimates that building the new tunnel between New Jersey and New York will increase existing home values by 18 billion dollars. If I remember correctly that works out to 250 million dollars a year in property taxes.
A mid-Peninsula HSR station located at Redwood City would be of some benefit….
If Caltrain and HSR pick the same platform height etc. any Caltrain station is an HSR station. Just have to hang out a shingle and install a TVM. Could probably get away without either. It’s one of the ways they could squeeze another station into the 24 station limit. Lose the Mid Peninsula station and build one in Hanford instead….
If all properties within 1/4 mile of the tracks lose 10% of their value but all properties within 10 miles of an HSR station gain 1% of their value due to better statewide transportation connectivity, the region comes out way ahead. If properties within 1/2 mile of Caltrain stations gain another 1% due to improved transit options, it’s all gravy.
It’s not all downside. Whatever the numbers may be, a proper accounting of the effect of the project on peninsula property values must take into account the non-zero added value of improved transportation connectivity.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
That’s a very nice theory, and one that even corresponds to the real world … outside the USA.
Meanwhile, here in California, as you very well know, Caltrain’s sub-cretin sub-human staff propose to cripple regional transportation and to dump gargantuan, four-of-more-times-oversized, Bechtel-wet-dream, Millbrae-BART-looks-like-a-piddling-trifle HSR “stations” on the “lucky” one or two flyover towns “blessed” with an “HSR stop”.
In short, it is all downside, with no upside to anybody but the construction mafioso whose interests so happily happen to coincide with public agency-generated “requirements” and “designs”.
Which is why all of the Caltrain and CHSRA staff ought to all be put up against a wall and … well, put out to pasture, permanently, at the very least.
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:25 am
Come on, you can’t expect to convince people with the fallacy of American Exceptionalism. California’s population density is similar to many parts of Europe, and governments around the world are alternatingly competent and incompetent. Look at the (at least historical) corruption in the process of building Italian infrastructure, and yet they have an extremely well functioning public transportation system decades after Mussolini, despite a political process often dominated by former nude models in parliament, a prime minister who controls a large proportion of the nation’s media, and mafia interference in the construction industry.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
You can’t have spent any time in Italy if you presume to string the words “extremely well functioning ” and “public” in the same sentence.
And good god, holding up Berlusconiland as something to which we should aspire! … Shoot me now.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
They build tunnels at sane costs, at the very least. Italy may not be Switzerland, but it’s not the US, either.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Under Prop 13, it is difficult for government to realize additional tax revenue from increases in property value. A decline in property value, on the other hand, immediately triggers a tax reduction to the owner. So to come out “way ahead” there has to be enough turn-over in housing stock to trigger re-appraisals.
synonymouse Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Believe me the reduction is far from immediate. The assessor always tries to highball even if you have a professional appraisal in hand, like one you had to pay for with a refi.
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Amen – my assessor sent me a letter saying “don’t even try”, before I could even inquire about it. Even if you get a reduction they make you get a new appraisal and duke it out with them every year in the hope that you’ll just give up.
BMF From San Diego Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:49 am
The added tax value is realized when the property is sold- at least for residential.
mike Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I think by “the region” Clem includes the actual people that live in the region (and own property). Those people benefit regardless of when or if the local government can reassess the tax basis.
caltrain row – the truth
sanfrancisco
brisbane
south city
millbrae
burlingame
san mateo
atherton
menlo park
compared to these upgraded elevated sections which are quite attractive at
belmont
an d is there any reason that hsr along the pen. would not basically resemble that? ( I don’t get why it has to be taller)
Gianny Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
WoW, that is Palo Alto? I though it look more pristine…Laguna Niguel, San Juan Capistrano is much better than that and they have trains too. Even Pasadena is more green than that!!!
Nadia Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Palo Alto isn’t listed
here’s Palo Alto: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=
103227331541804366943.00046f406d78e12a6a1fb
When we bought our condo next to Diridon Station five years ago, we signed closing papers that contained pages of disclosures describing the possible effects that living next to a train station might have upon our property. Wouldn’t anyone who has purchased a home next to the Caltrain Corridor have similar disclosures in their closing papers, particularly if they had purchased the home more recently? It is true that the potential impact of HSR would probably not have been mentioned, but it would be naive to assume that the Caltrain Corridor would never change.
In regard to the effects that HSR might have upon home prices. The information we received at the time of our purchase was that for townhouses or condos a location such as ours would not have a net effect upon value as compared to a location further away, but that for single family homes there would be a decrease in value for a home near the tracks. I would assume that anyone buying a home close to the tracks anywhere along the Caltrain corridor would have or least should have known that such a location might lessen the value of their property.
Just how much the additional impact of high speed rail might have upon home values in Atherton, Menlo Park or Palo Alto is unclear, but one thing is clear—-If homeowners overreact and go into a panic, there are going to be some really prime properties for sale at some very reasonable prices.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Just curious – how do you like living in those condos? Are those the ones directly west of Diridon Station, across the tracks, or is it somewhere else?
John Burrows Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I do live in one of the tall narrow condos directly across the tracks from Diridon Station. The location of our condo so close to a major train station has not been a problem and in fact has been a real benefit
Both my wife and I quickly got used to the noise and we now sleep with the window open — in fact we have trouble sleeping if it is too quiet.
Living so close to Caltrain and VTA has been a real convenience, but the fact that they do not connect directly with most of the places we need to go is a problem. We use the trains whenever we can and my guess is that so far this year the two of us together have traveled over10,000 miles by rail (7,000 miles on AMTRAK and over 3,000 miles on Caltrain and VTA.
It has been argued that CAHSR will be ineffective because of the time and expense it takes to get from your house to the train added to the time it takes to get from the train to your destination. Based on our experience—If your home is very close to a station, then you will find ways to take the train wherever possible, even if there is not a direct connection with your destination.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Great comment about the homeowners themselves creating such horror stories that they themselves are feeding the property value issues
synonymouse Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
The horror stories have not even captured the full extent of this piece of dreck.
Imagine a four track BART aerial with masts and catenary, enshrouded in sound walls. Four tracks bolted to a hollow-core structure that resonates like a tuning fork. Add some corrugation and some flatted wheels and you should be able to create a din that Steve Jobs could hear up in the hills.
Maybe not that far, but a lady I used to work with has a house on the hill in Daly City quite a ways up from BART and she says she can hear every train, and I mean really hear every train.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
the plan for the aerial is not a pair of hollow concrete beams. Isn’t a a retaining wall filled with soil creating essentially an at grade track on ballast which is much quieter?
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
They may not be planning hollow-core columns, but they ARE planning hollow-core structures mounted on columns. That doesn’t mean that the sound will travel for miles, as it looks to me as if the sound will be aimed down and slightly outwards.
I’m really not sure where the hell he’s getting “flatted wheels” from, as trains that can go 220 mph cannot have flatted wheels.
synonymouse Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Out of round wheels are a cause of corrugation. When the hsr starts to run up large operating deficits maintenance will of course be reduced, and noise problems will inevitably worsen
See BART.
Fortunately for many of those in PAMPA they have the resources to relocate. So it could be worse. But everyone will share the pain shortly. It looks like the majority initiative to pass the state budget will pass so start squirreling away some thousands of dollars to pay Jerry’s inevitable tax levies to baksheesh the teachers union.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
After some confusion on everyone’s part on the difference between an aerial structure and retained fill, the retained fill option was eliminated in favor of just the aerials.
This is what happens when people fail to communicate.
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
“Maybe not that far, but a lady I used to work with has a house on the hill in Daly City quite a ways up from BART and she says she can hear every train, and I mean really hear every train.”
If she lives on a hill, she also hears every single bus and truck that goes past. Big whoop.
synonymouse Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Funny thing it was BART that she really noticed. Something about steel on steel like scratching a chalkboard. That was why Paris-Montreal-Mexico DF toyed with rubber-tired subways.
Joey Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Something about steel on steel like scratching a chalkboard.
Not for most of the world.
J. Wong Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
BART’s not a good comparison because it is particularly noisy for some reason. Like I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve waited on the Caltrain platforms, and except for when the diesel passes, the trains are pretty quiet. It’s the wind you notice first, and when I haven’t been paying attention, I’ve been surprised by the train when it passes because it is barely noticeable.
synonymouse Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 11:33 am
The “for some reason” is Bechtel. Bechtel does Brutalist. End of story.
Victor Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Sound Walls? Not needed, Nor is any RR going to do that either, As HSR passenger trains are closely coupled together and so there will be no switching noises like at a freight yard where switching of cars is done(Like in Barstow CA, They have no sound walls, Switching of freight cars in a Switching Yard sounds like something hollow is crashing together, One gets used to It, But then switching doesn’t happen at night in Barstow and It doesn’t seem to carry very far in the desert air), Also Electric locos are quieter than Diesel-Electric locos, Less so on noise when moving and Electrics don’t have any exhaust, Diesels do.
Spokker Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
“When we bought our condo next to Diridon Station five years ago, we signed closing papers that contained pages of disclosures describing the possible effects that living next to a train station might have upon our property.”
You mean the effect of making it prohibitively expensive for the people who need transit the most to live near transit?
It’s interesting to me that Robert sees HSR is such stark class warfare terms. If government action causes economic damage to a citizen or group of citizens in pursuit of something Robert personally wants, that’s just too bad. If the people damaged have more money then Robert, it’s a bonus.
To my mind there is a difference between economic damage from the deliberate actions of a state agency and changes in property value from market forces generally. Robert’s statement that treating a house as an investment is a choice you can make or not is patently absurd. Property is an asset class, as is a bank account, a share of stock, a car, your grandfather’s pocket watch. If you own a home instead of renting it is by definition an investment. You may hope for a return on that investment or not, but you don’t generally buy a home not caring about what happens to the value of the underlying asset. Presuming that a government agency can undermine individuals’ property rights with impunity is a form of government, just not OUR form of government.
Presumably Robert’s “that’s just too bad – suck it” attitude about individual property rights doesn’t extend to people’s homes being bulldozed to make room for HSR – or maybe it does.
Robert’s statement that property values along the Caltrain corridor may be falling because of the noise from the locomotives currently running on the Caltrain tracks displays a profound misunderstanding of economics and markets. Locomotives have been running on those track for decades so that activity is already priced into the value of homes along the corridor. Only a change in expectations about activity along the corridor (HSR, Caltrain electrification, changes in train frequency) can drive changes in real estate prices distinct from the broader local market. Robert’s analysis here displays a childlike form of wishful thinking. He flatly denies evidence that is contrary to his point of view and embraces spurious perspectives that support it – all without facts.
Of course the bigger issue is the economic non-viability of HSR generally. That will cost all of us a ton of money over a very long period of time. According to the business plan HSR NEVER intends to pay back the projected $40 billion in capital costs (I bet closer to $80-100 billion before they are done) and it is becoming increasingly clear that it will require massive operating subsidies (billions worth) indefinitely.
And of course all this deficit spending is to build something that Robert’s own analysis says is unlikely to be needed (see his posts on the decline of car ownership).
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
The state should not use eminent domain in order to benefit private development, but has always and must, use it for the greater public good.
synonymouse Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Uh, did you ever hear the term ”ürban removal”?
To get a good idea of just what this usage of eminent domain means in the real world, just take a walk over to Laguna and Fillmore. Used to have streetcars and victorian houses once upon a time.
Al Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
You mean “renewal”.
Peter Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
No, he doesn’t, he’s just being an ass.
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Not that I would ever want to agree with synonymouse, but to pour cold water over your misconception, look up Kelo v. City of New London, which essentially annihilated the difference between “private development” and “public purpose”.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I remember that case being in the news and I found it disturbing. That should never have been allowed. Having grown up in america in the 0s and 70s, we were taught in no uncertain terms, in grade school, that eminent domain was reserved for PUBLIC works projects.. Freeway, schools, airports, and so forth. basically for infrastructure. period. If we have strayed from that, then that is unacceptable.
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Yeah, Kelo is pretty frakked up, I agree. The saddest part of that case is that the development pretty much failed, and Phizer, for which Ms. Kelo’s property was seized to build a parking lot of all things, moved out. So now it’s empty.
dfb Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 12:24 am
As Kelo said, eminent domain has been used for so much more for such a long time. Consider the fact that Congress made a deal with the railroads in the 1800′s. The railroads were both a private development and a public works project, not to mention a give-away of epic proportions. States like Texas still grant railroads the power of eminent domain over *any* property. Not too long ago, BNSF used its power to condemn and seize a portion of an airport owned by Houston. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1045588798778721341&q=houston+airport+bnsf+%22eminent+domain%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2002
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
According to the business plan HSR NEVER intends to pay back the projected $40 billion in capital costs
You say that like every infrastructure project in history (freeways, airports, water pipes) has paid back its costs.
Emma Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
But with more than $1 billion in revenue every year (not including the additional revenue from the extensions), HSR will pay off in 40 years. That’s the best deal I know.
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:41 am
It’s interesting how people make conclusions like, “I am worried about noise from the tracks, therefore the train system will require billions of subsidies every year.” Pretty much no HSR system pays for it’s capital costs (pretty much no infrastructure project for that matter), but pretty much every HSR system covers its operating costs. As a part owner of the system, I would prefer to reduce revenue a bit in order to lower ticket prices and maximize economic benefit, but I would also be OK with higher prices to ensure financial stability and potentially fund future expansion.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 3:31 am
You didn’t ever study economics did you Matthew?
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Sorry for double post…
Presumably Robert’s “that’s just too bad – suck it” attitude about individual property rights doesn’t extend to people’s homes being bulldozed to make room for HSR – or maybe it does.
If you look, the vast majority of the right-of-way is MORE than wide enough to accommodate HSR already. A few homes (or more commonly, strips of back yard) will have to be taken here and there, but of course any ACTUAL property takes have to be compensated.
dave Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
“Property is an asset class, as is a bank account, a share of stock, a car, your grandfather’s pocket watch.”
Well you seem to think that buying a single house is a lucrative business and by that you get wat you deserve. Houses are only investments to your personal well being, not as a money making business or retirement fund, that’s your bad. Your house if paid off will always retain some sort of value as an ‘asset’ if intact and only once paid off. Until it’s paid off it continues to be an investment (in you) and also a big liability until it turns into an asset in wich you can then exchange it for cash at current market rate. If your house isn’t paid off and you are betting your retirement on a guy or gal who is going to guess up a number to determine your fate is pretty sad. You shouldn’t have done that in the first place, common sense will tell you that’s a gamble. You can’t go and blame this project for your mistake.
BTW, appraisers drastically inflated prices to begin with and they depend on each other to put a price on the neighborhood. So they might have raised your hopes up. By that logic, I can probably search for my neighbors and bill them for my loss in property value when they left their property fall due to no maintenance.
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I think you missed the point. I never assumed any appreciation on the value of my house – investment is the act of owning an asset, return on investment is the outcome of earning on the growth in value of the asset. I wasn’t assuming any return on my “investment”.
People must assume everybody out there who owns a house in leveraged to the hilt – I’m not one of those. My house is mostly paid off but I know that CA property taxes will make it impossible for me to keep it through retirement. Having the government make a mess in my back yard means a chunk of the hard-earned cash I put into the equity of my home goes up in smoke over and above whatever gain or loss I might realize without the HSR mess. It’s pretty common for people to move out of California to retire as has been previously posted – there are 49 other states with cheaper real estate and 47 with lower income taxes – HSR makes it harder to get out because you save and save to pay off your house only to see a chunk of it go up is smoke because someone wants to ride the train to Disneyland. I agree with you that it’s sad that it has to work that way, but it’s what happens when real-estate gets bid up and property taxes go up with it.
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:50 am
Actually, California has quite low property taxes, and it was famously pointed out by Warren Buffet that he pays more property tax on his relatively modest home in Omaha than he does on his mansion in Orange County.
Andy Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Thanks for the comment. I’d be surprised if that were true. CA tax RATES may be low, but TAX DOLLARS paid are quite high because real estate is far more expensive here. People constantly confuse the tax rate with the tax bill.
Just to be sure I collected some facts:
I have a 3,200 sf house, 3BR/3BA on 0.29 acre. I looked up on the MLS a slightly larger brand new house, 5BR/5BA, with a bigger garage on a much larger lot in Omaha (since you brought it up). The property taxes on my house are 335% of the Omaha house – In Omaha you can get more house for less than 1/3 the property taxes. Of course you have to live in Omaha. But real estate taxes here are certainly not lower.
If Buffet bought his Orange county home 30-50 years ago then he might have a very low appraised value. The issue is Prop 13, which addressed the right issue of spiraling property taxes putting retired people out of their homes. It’s just that the implementation, which focused on restricting the growth in appraised value between property sales rather than indexing the tax rate down for everyone as local real estate prices grew. The Prop 13 approach creates all kinds of stupid distortions in the market and adverse behavior – basically trapping people in their homes and having kids move into their inherited homes just for the low tax base. What they should have done is allow taxes to rise at the rate of overall cost of living inflation by dropping the tax rate by the ratio or real estate inflation to CPI. Basically the politicians were greedy – they wanted to keep the extra tax money from spiraling real-estate values even though they new it was a windfall and it was hurting people. They didn’t act to do something rational and we got a proposition that created as many problem as it solved. Now, people get confused and think the answer is to raise the real-estate tax rate – which is incorrect – that just puts even more of the burden on new owners and doesn’t resolve the underlying issue.
Off of the soap box now… :-)
Spokker Reply:
October 26th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
If property taxes were higher you probably wouldn’t be enticed to buy 3,200 square feet of space you probably don’t need. That people are buying that much house in Rancho Cucamonga isn’t exactly good for society.
Homeowners love to complain but the deck is so far stacked in their favor it’s idiotic. That homeownership is somehow “good” or even a right is a concept that needs to die in this country.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 1:34 am
Wow – somebody’s got a chip on his shoulders.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 2:45 am
Okay I found the actual data. In 2009 California has the tenth highest median property taxes of any state in the Union. Some of the states with higher property taxes, like Connecticut , don’t have income taxes though.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 3:01 am
Also…
If you bought your house recently, due to the vagaries of Prop 13, you pay 50% higher property taxes than average, placing you among the top four states in property taxes paid. Only New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut have higher median property taxes than a new homeowner in CA. Of those, Connecticut and New Hampshire don’t have state income taxes.
Source: US Census Bureau, Tax Foundation.
Where do these urban legends about low property taxes in California come from?
Victor Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Well I sure wish I had the money to buy the last house I looked at outright(cash sale), But so far the USDA Rural Development has no money to loan(Direct Mortgage or section 502 loan, 100% Financing @ the USDA Rural Development on Direct Mortgages) until Congress is back in session and votes on an Agricultural appropriations bill(S.3606 I think and the house equivalent whatever that is). It doesn’t require a down payment, But the seller either doesn’t want someone in this situation or is ignorant, Raising what they’d like for a GFD or getting the USDA to supply $2000.00 as a Good Faith Deposit will have to wait until near the end of November. As to Me raising It? It would take nearly 12 months or the sale of My mobilehome to the park(which will happen anyway for $6500), Selling My mobilehome before the USDA has funding and before I have final loan approval is not something I want as I’d rather not be homeless as I can’t afford to pay rent in California anymore, As I get $845 a month on SSI as I’m a disabled person(Physically & Mentally).
But yeah I’d think a house or almost any property would go up in value if It’s near HSR. My mobilehome is all paid off, But being I rent the space It sits on, It’s not quite as secure or as close to My relatives for My golden years as I’d like and yeah I’m technically a senior now. Plus I can’t get a loan to fix It up as It sits in a park. As to lower income tax, That means nothing to someone like Me as SSI is not a taxable income and the cheaper real estate is not cheaper for Me and I’d be all alone as all My living relatives are in California some 45 to 50 miles away currently and no where else. Moving elsewhere would mean My income would shrink to about $674.00 a month, Regardless of what My real living expenses were/are like.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
You are clueless about how “property rights” work.
First, you have NO right to expect any particular value for your property. It may rise, it may fall, whatever. You have no right to expect that it will maintain its value or that government will compensate you if the value falls.
Second, and this shows your misunderstanding of the basic concept, your property rights DO protect you from government simply bulldozing your home. That is why the eminent domain process exists. Government CAN take your property, but you have a right to be paid fair market value for the home. Note that the right is “fair market value” and not “Andy’s desired value so he can cash out and go build a dream home in Oregon.”
Third, the notion that any government action that lowers the value of a home should result in government compensating someone for the lost value is just nuts. If that were true, then every homeowner in America deserves to have government pay for their lost value since the bubble burst, given that it was government policies that created an unsustainable bubble.
It’s not about class warfare to me – homeowners like you are poised to make out like bandits if HSR gets built. Maybe it is about class warfare to you, though, since you seem quite happy to stop a passenger rail system this state desperately needs to remain economically competitive so that you can try and maintain your own property value.
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Robert – you continue to totally miss the point. If the government acts in a way that directly affects the value of my property that is the only effect I am talking about. If they bulldoze my house or build a sewage treatment plant next door what’s the difference? I am not nor have I ever been talking about real-estate bubble losses, only HSR losses. I know it’s tough to keep two separate ideas in your head at the same time without confusing them, but try.
You have failed to make any fact-based case that the state desperately needs HSR – only hysterical claims. In fact your own posts argue the opposite, the already measurable declining auto ownership you point to will tax freeway resources less, not more.
If we were so desperate the first thing we should do is build the parallel runways at SFO that would allow simultaneous instrument approaches – that would be a much better investment than a white elephant rail system. Seriously.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
you mean the hysterical claim that prop 1a passed?
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:57 am
I think that the case was made very well that the alternative investment required would be much more than the costs of a high speed rail system. Let’s assume there were cost overruns with the HSR system. Even if it ended up costing twice the estimate, it would still be cheaper than all the alternative airport and freeway projects required to get the same benefit. Those tarmac based projects would also be subject to cost overruns, would result in higher pollution, sprawl, and would have higher community impacts. On the whole, I think that HSR is a much less risky option, and would have additional financial, cultural, and environmental benefits that have been proven over and over again in diverse places around the world. If you care about property values as a whole, HSR is the much better investment.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Andy, how and at what cost would you plan to:
accomodate future population growth?
increase connectivity and transportation options for the currently underserved communities which will benefit from hsr
relieve existing delays and congestion at airports
cater to the demands of existing rail passengers for more and faster service
what will you do and how much will it cost?
how will the fast growing central valley achieve faster connectivity to the rest of the state?
how will the states regions be become better connected? more freeway lanes? how much will that cost and with no speed/time saving benefit?
Current airports are maxed out. Do you suggest few flight options with larger planes? that means fewer choices for californians.
Do you propose airport expansion and at what cost? and by overcoming nimby opposition in what way?
you have to answer those questions before you can write off something as multi useful as hsr.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Being near a Caltrain station increases your property values. Being near an electrified Caltrain station increases your property values more.
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 3:58 am
not to mention grade separation.
mike Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
If the government acts in a way that directly affects the value of my property that is the only effect I am talking about.
So if the Caltrain corridor improvements positively affect housing prices, and your home’s value increases (relative to the national average) between 2009 and whenever HSR is completed, you’re going to write a big check to the State of California for improving your property value, right? Or is this one of the “heads I win, tails you lose” games?
YesonHSR Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Its your fault you purchased a home near a major transprtation corridor..HSR or not ..Prop13 or not HSR for the billion time will bring safe grade free access to these areas..If you people want tunnles or covered trenches pay the diffence in cost with that value you have!! over 30 years it will be more than doable and will raise your already way over priced real estate in these “towns” but dont expect the rest of the BAYArea to subsidies your value “growth” by replacing a 140 year old railroad ROW with a park behind that yard you choses to purchase
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Well thanks for blaming it on me. Do you hang out by the emergency room and fix blame on accident victims as they come in – “it’s your own damn fault for not driving a Hummer”.
Believe me, the big subsidy will be on the construction and associated financing costs – particularly when this sucker goes over budget by 100 or 200 percent plus the ongoing operating subsidies to keep it running because nobody is going to pay $250 for a train ticket between LA and SF. Caltrain is bankrupt despite massive subsidies and that is in one of the densest corridors in California. Surely it’s madness to do the same thing over and over again with only rationalization to support the hope that the outcome will be different.
The financial math on HSR is clear to anyone who’s read the detailed business plan – it’s a massive money-loser.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
nonsense..it is your fault if your whinning about this project and home values ect ect…your other comments are strickly the same BS propaganda that every ideology/teabaggers state as if its all true and HSR will just be running empty and has never been prove anywhere in the world..funny you mention auto accidents that cost 100s of billions in damage and deaths and your types whinne about HSR
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Nobody’s running you over, Andy; stop using hyperbole. You bought an asset expecting government policy to keep propping its value, but instead it’s doing something that you believe will reduce it. You deserve to get compensation to the exact same extent that if some project makes your area more desirable, you have to pay a special tax on your house’s asset value appreciation.
Clem Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Robert’s analysis here displays a childlike form of wishful thinking. He flatly denies evidence that is contrary to his point of view and embraces spurious perspectives that support it – all without facts.
You seem to understand markets. Maybe this will make sense to you: right now there is a lot of uncertainty, misunderstanding, and baseless fear. Markets only price things accurately when everyone has access to the same accurate information. Failing that, it’s garbage in, garbage out. You could reasonably say that the real estate market in the immediate vicinity of the Caltrain corridor “embraces spurious perspectives, all without facts”: that grade-separations will be much louder, bring blight and graffiti, cast enormous shadows, impede auto, pedestrian and bike traffic, etc. Consider for a moment that the sky might not be falling quite as hard as the market might have priced in today, in its collective ignorance.
Of course the bigger issue is the economic non-viability of HSR generally. That will cost all of us a ton of money over a very long period of time. According to the business plan HSR NEVER intends to pay back the projected $40 billion in capital costs
What if that’s okay? Freeways are exactly the same way, and yet seem to fail to outrage you to the same degree. You’ve got to apply a consistent political philosophy, otherwise you might reveal some of the same zealotry of which you accuse Robert.
it is becoming increasingly clear that it will require massive operating subsidies (billions worth) indefinitely.
Only if “operating costs” include debt service and depreciation of the infrastructure. This is a distinction that VC types are all too happy to blur and confuse for you, all in the name of tarring this project as a hopeless money pit.
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Hey Clem,
I didn’t claim any of the things you seem to attribute to me in your statement about accurate information.
As to the economics, we increasingly have the technology to pay for roads – historically toll collection has just made it impractical. I have heard of plans to use FastPath to “rent out” the HOV lane with prices varying depending on traffic. What a great way to fund future improvements – except for people who don’t believe in markets and want everyone else to pay for their benefits. Unlike roads HSR has a perfect mechanism to ensure it covers its costs – it’s called a fare. You have to buy one to ride. Just set the fares so that the system pays for it’s operating and construction costs. The problem of course is that that would lead to $400 tickets and then ridership would fall and you’d have to raise the fare to $1000 to make it work and then you’d lose more riders and on and on until you’re done. The fact is it’s not worth it to enough people to ride the train at what it really costs so they try and jam the costs on the rest of us. It’s not like we don’t have alternatives – in fact it’s because of the better alternatives that the HSR can’t close its business case without subsidized construction (100% paid by taxpayers with no payback ever) AND IMHO subsidized operations in perpetuity (without amortization of capital investment, either initial or recurring – yes I do understand the difference, as do the VCs I know). It’s the fate of virtually every rail system in the country. HSR will not escape it.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Toll lanes have had mixed success, in some cases being a total financial flop. There is little evidence that they can pay for new roads, or even pay for maintenance of existing ones. Maybe if you toll every lane…
Andy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 12:03 am
That would probably be what you’d have to do. Bridges tend to pay for themselves and then some, but that’s because they are choke points where it’s easy to collect tolls. You could also pay for roads with a gasoline tax as has been proposed in the past – that would better align allocation of costs with usage. It would also make public transportation more financially attractive in comparison. However, the political class has decided that some should not have to pay their fair share of the cost maintaining the roads – particularly the teamsters, who drive heavy trucks many more miles than the rest of us but also have a powerful lobby. They don’t want to pay their share of the costs. Instead we fund roads through the income tax primarily. There are lots of success stories for private highways, especially with modern technology to manage payments. The thing people don’t like about it is that use taxes tend to be flat rather than progressive like the income tax and they’d prefer to redistribute income. Maybe that’s a good goal, maybe it’s not, but there’s no arguing that it creates economic distortions.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
You’ve pulled the $400 figure out of your ass. If you look for more realistic numbers, your argument will fall apart; you can’t make numbers like $100 or $120 look so inherently ridiculous.
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Alon,
If you can build HSR and pay back the $40-100billion in construction costs (plus interest) for $100 to 120 per ticket, go for it – you could probably even get private funding rather than having to stick it to unsuspecting taxpayers, most of who I suspect believe HSR is going to pay back the bonds out of operating profits – not true.
I didn’t run the exact numbers for what it would add to cover construction costs on top of the operating costs, but as I recall the operating budget was a couple of billion per year so if you add the interest on $40 billion that would roughly triple the ticket cost. With cost overruns of 100% or more as has been common for big projects of this type you are talking about five or six times the ticket cost of the official projection. I don’t remember the exact projected ticket cost, but I think it was north of $100 each way, so it’s not entirely a rectal extraction to say $400 to cover operating plus capital costs, in fact it might be conservative. It really escapes me why people think they are entitled to have taxpayers write them a several hundred dollar check so they don’t have to drive to Disneyland. If you think it’s such a great idea pay the full cost, but it’ll be substantially higher than the fare just to cover the operating costs – and I strongly suspect the operating costs will be above projections.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 12:14 am
$40-100 billion is unjustified. The estimate says $43. Saying “all government projects go over budget” doesn’t cut it; so far there has been one real cost escalation, and it’s leading to a cheaper shared-track option instead of a higher real budget. By the standards of anything in the Northeast, it’s looking surprisingly good.
The “five or six times the ticket cost” number is complete hogwash. You’re making up numbers. Go to SNCF’s proposal, which states, “In present value some 43 percent of funds required for the initial capital investments including rolling stock would be generated from operating revenues.”
This does not mean ticket prices would have to be multiplied by 1/0.43 to cover all costs. First, the numbers only go as far as 2040, so the profits afterward are not counted; that’s why it’s too long-term for the private sector. Second, about a third of the cost is operating, not capital. Third, if the US falls into a lost decade then the correct discount rate will be much less than 4%, making front-loaded capital costs proportionally smaller than future revenues. And fourth, HSR displaces cars, which according to SNCF would generate enough positive environmental externalities to make it socially profitable by 2040.
The base ticket price used in the original CAHSR calculations was not “north of $100 each way”; it was $55 for LA-SF. SNCF assumes an average fare of $42 per rider, including both LA-SF and much shorter trips. If you ignore the environmental part, and think the US economy will soon go back to normal growth, then the average ticket price necessary for recovering all costs by 2040 is a little less than $100.
Andy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 1:33 am
Nope – they redid the numbers after it was found that there were errors – the current fare estimate is $103-105 for LA-SF. However, they have not re-estimated ridership post-recession and despite your claim that the US economy will be back to normal growth, every economic forecast I have seen projects slow and erratic growth for years to come. Plus even if we got back to normal growth, you’d still have to make up for the drop in economic activity through the recession. The number one reason given for the abysmal over-estimation of the BART-SFO extension ridership “I don’t think that anyone predicted the extent of the economic depression as a result of the dot-com bust”. Gee – how’s the past two years compare to the internet bust?
As to the hogwash on cost estimates. In a study of large public works projects conducted by the Major Programme Management Department at Oxford University it was found that 90 percent go over budget and the average amount they go over budget is 40 percent. That means the EXPECTED cost of HSR based on historical experience is $64 billion, about the midpoint of a range of $40 to $100 billion. Furthermore, the consulting firm used to plan HSR is Parsons-Brinckerhoff – the same firm that led BART SFO project that has grossly underestimated costs and overestimated ridership. They also did the Big Dig in Boston that was some 700% over budget. Who swore to the numbers for BART/SFO – Quentin Kopp. He is unapologetic about the BART mess and argues we should trust him now because HSR has hired the best experts in the field – apparently referring to the guys who did the Big Dig.
I’m not optimistic at all that this is going to end well. If you launch five rockets and they all blow up, do you really need to launch a sixth one? I’ll bet before 2012 is through the HSR will come back to us and say something like “oops – due to unpredictable events beyond our control we will need just a few billion more, oh and the ridership is looking a little soft so we’ll need some operating subsidy, but we’re already committed now so full speed ahead”. Then in 2013, 2014, 2015 more of the same. I’ll have a great “I told you so”, but it’ll be mostly a bitter pill because no one was able to stop it.
Spokker Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 1:38 am
I believe an operating subsidy will be required for the first few years. The problem is that they put into law a provision that it not operate with a subsidy. Bonehead move.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
CAHSR didn’t redo the numbers. It had given several scenarios for fare, ridership, and revenue estimates. Originally, it advocated a lower-fare strategy, with an LA-SF fare of $55, in 2006 dollars. It then went for a somewhat higher fare to increase revenue, which looks even higher because it’s stated in current dollars.
You misunderstand what I’m saying about economic forecast. The worse the economy is, the better the financial forecast for CAHSR is. A worse economy is one with a lower discount rate, which means that spending $40 billion today to profit $2 billion a year in the future becomes a more solid proposition. In other words, the reduction in revenue coming from a recession is smaller than the reduction in interest California could get if it just saved the money.
The PBQD bit is not relevant. First, the numbers were endorsed by an agency with a reputation for keeping costs under control and matching or exceeding ridership projections, even in an environment where it has a bigger incentive to lie about costs than California. Second, PBQD has only had moderate cost escalations (over an overinflated budget, but still) on Second Avenue Subway, and has submitted bids at reasonable cost abroad; the problem is not PBQD, but the politicians in charge.
Finally, the Oxford estimate is an average. There are projects that go 250% over budget and projects that stay within budget. Right now, CAHSR is barely behind ARC in its development phase, and yet it’s had none of ARC’s cost overruns. I don’t think anyone would cite Oxford to argue that ARC should really cost $4 billion and not $10+ billion because the original estimate was $2.7 billion and projects go over budget by 40%; why cite Oxford to argue that CAHSR will eventually run over?
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
I see differences in ridership under the 83% of airfare scenario in the December 2009 versus 2008 business plan – take a look.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Business_Plan_reports.aspx
I understand that there are different scenarios and that the most recent plan is in 2009$. I also find it hilarious that the business plan compare HSR SF-LA at $105 each way ($210 round trip) to a projected airfare (in 2009$ – so no claiming inflation) of $126 and auto costs of $119 (each way, per person!). You can get a ticket today, no advanced purchase, on United and three other airlines for less than half that (no claiming that train riders walk to the station and air travellers drive and park – the same options face both). On the car side you have to assume one person per car, $4 per gallon gasoline (2009$) and a lot of maintenance costs amortized in and still you can’t get there. A more reasonable set of assumptions gets you to more like $20-40 to drive per person each way. PLUS, if you drive you don’t have to rent a car on the other end (oops, they forgot that when you get to LA most people are going to want to be somewhere other than the train station). If someone working for me developed a model with such OBVIOUSLY wrong assumptions I’d fire them – especially if real people’s dollars were riding on the results. The different scenarios clearly show that ridership is highly sensitive to relative prices of alternatives. If you take more realistic costs of alternaitves to HSR you get the 83% ridership volume at HSR fares equal to or less than the 50% scenario. Revenues would be about half of what’s shown in the business plan, if the ridership estimates themselves are reliable. There has been significant criticism of those too as inflated – I haven’t looked into it directly, but the share estimates, particularly on Bay Area to LA basin seem pretty rosy, price sensitivity notwithstanding.
As to the Oxford study. They found that 90% of mega-projects ran over. 90%! You can argue all you want that since it isn’t 100% of projects running over this one won’t, but hope is not much of a strategy. Again, if someone working for me presented that kind of sloppy analysis (a 10% chance that it’ll work out okay) they’d deserve to be fired. The track records of the specific involved parties working in HSR is particularly poor. It’s hardly confidence-building. Read the report, they have made no specific analyses of the more complex aspects of the project – they don’t even know where the stations are going. It’s a WAG, and a WAG where they have every incentive to lowball the cost numbers. Your ARC analogy seems goofy to me. The Oxford study showed a range of cost overruns around an average of 40%. But if mega-project estimates were truly unbiased you’d expect a normal distribution around an average of 0% – some projects would run over and some would run under. That’s not what happens in reality. Projects are consistently under-budgeted and run OVER (again) 90% of the time. That means you expect a 40% overrun unless there is some specific evidence that they changed estimation techniques or added an extraordinary provision for overruns in the estimate. They didn’t. In August 2010 Quentin Kopp was interviewed on exactly this question. In response to a question asking what specific changes in HSR cost estimating were adapted to avoid the kinds of overruns that happened with BART to SFO. His reply was “none, but we’ve hired the very best people”. The people HSR has hired? The same ones who gave us the BART-SFO mess. I’m a Bayesian – you do the same thing the same way twice and get the same bad outcome and you can be pretty darn sure if you do it a thrid time the same way you’ll get the same bad outcome. Your logic seems to be the same as Kopp’s – a 10% chance is the same as a guarantee.
Robert wrote “Still, that isn’t an argument for not doing HSR – it’s instead an argument for quickly resolving this one way or the other, which is what I think Nadia was trying to say here. ”
I’m actually concerned about how much money will materialize, how quickly it comes and how many segments we can actually cover with that money.
Rushing towards a DEIR only to have it sit for a long time until the money shows up is a problem. Just ask Caltrain about their now very stale Electrification EIR. And, as Robert points out, uncertainty is the biggest issue with real estate. That’s not just in our area, that is Statewide.
I think another thing to keep in mind is Peninsulans aren’t just worried about HSR – but also freight. HSR may be quieter than Caltrain and therefore potentially increase property values, but having an elevated freight train is a big concern. Also, I’m not so sure there won’t still be some horns (like when an HSR trains blows through a station). And, keep in mind the protracted construction period is also a concern. Finally, most people are not good at imagining long term benefits – they’re more concerned about short term effects (like decrease taxes affecting schools, etc.).
I agree with Robert that these are not reasons to NOT do HSR – but they do factor in to the concerns and I think it is important to state them.
I do NOT agree with Robert’s comment “Palo Alto and other Peninsula cities should stop trying to delay the HSR process with lawsuits and resolutions and should instead start working more constructively to determine the vertical alignments. That’s good for property values, and it also just so happens to be what the public wants anyway.”
Citizens have a right to file lawsuits if they disagree under CEQA. It is part of the responsibility of the people to raise important issues once they’ve exhausted all their other remedies and while many on this blog may disagree – clearly the cities involved in lawsuits feel they have issues that need to be addressed to have confidence in this project. We shouldn’t be afraid of the issues raised – thinking long term, in the end they make for a better project.
Also, let’s be clear – the cities that have filed lawsuits are still fully participating in the process and working constructively. They attend meetings, send comments, and continue to be engaged.
Peter Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
We already know that funding will be available. China, Japan, and South Korea have already offered major funding for the project. We haven’t asked the Europeans yet, although SNCF has already expressed interest in funding and operating the system.
I don’t understand why opponents keep on ignoring those facts.
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
We’re in the middle of a deep recession that has been the direct result of borrowing to spend money we can’t reasonably pay back and your answer is to borrow MORE? Are you serious? The Chinese already have us by the short hairs as a result of all the US debt they hold.
It’s total madness. All for something that creates basically zero value for the economy and generates more ecological damage in its construction than will ever be saved from it’s operation.
YesonHSR Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Try the trilion dollar war..thats what you should be teapot screaming about…BS about the ecological damage..the land required to build this phase is about the size of 2 large housing tracts in the valley
and its that sprawl single homes with 4 cars thats the real damage…and besides prop1A PASSED 2 years ago next week enough of the spin facts as if its on the ballot
Andy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 12:17 am
I was talking about the amount of carbon released to build and operate it. I agree the land used is not so big. Ironically I recall objections to the Alaska oil pipeline on the basis of the long right of way being ecologically damaging to caribou migration.
If you’re really concerned about too many people living in suburbs and owning cars you are focused on the wrong transportation program – you’d be a lot better off spending on local public transportation. HSR, if anything, will encourage sprawl by allowing people to live in suburbs further from the metro areas where real estate is cheaper and they can buy bigger lots – sorry.
Spokker Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 1:40 am
“I was talking about the amount of carbon released to build and operate it.”
Carbon will be released whether highways or runways are built. It’s kind of irrelevant when we have to build some kind of transportation infrastructure anyway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Everyone knows highways and airport runways are built by jolly gnomes out of carbon free pixie dust. Or that there’s lots and lots of open land in metro LA and SF to build them on. And that we’ll all be driving autonomous electric cars that go 1,000 miles between recharges and the efficiency gains airplane manufacturers have made in the past few decades will go on forever so that by 2040 a 747 will fly between the coasts on a gallon or two of fuel…
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 3:42 am
Actually, I’m pretty sure runways are shorter than 500 miles and don’t require drilling holes through mountain ranges. It wasn’t the point anyway. The point was that HSR has been trotted out as something that’s good for climate change, but the carbon released in building it and generating the power to operate it make it negative on balance versus current the transportation mode mix.
Isaac Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Sorry but that’s totally false.
Comparative among transportation systems per passenger from Madrid to Barcelona ON REAL CONDITIONS (real distance travelled, load factors, etc.):
- Car: 283 kWh / 63 kg CO2
- Plane: 217 kWh / 67 kg CO2
- Coach: 56 kWh / 14.5 kg CO2
- Conv. Train (old line): 63 kWh / 16.4 kg CO2
- HSR (new line): 50 kWh / 13.1 kg CO2
Source (in Spanish).
Conclusion: The HSR is the MOST EFFICIENT and LESS POLLUTANT of all, including the slower conventional train that supposedly should have been more efficient (and it was already an electric train, not a diesel one like in the USA).
Greetings.
dave Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
As I’ve seen it, we’ve had at least one offer to let us borrow all of the money and at least one offer to build and operate the system where California would NOT own the actual system or any profit’s made or be held responsible for failure of the system should it not succeed. Also I think another offer to fund the “private investment” part of the business plan. Anybody, correct me if I’m wrong.
Andy Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 1:38 am
If someone offers to fund 100% of the construction and operations out of ticket sales – TAKE THE OFFER! Then when they go bankrupt you can pick up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Just don’t sign any guarantees.
dave Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:27 am
I think that offer was made by China. Are you okay with China owning our High Speed Rail Infrastructure? What if it’s profitable? wouldn’t that make you mad, especially since you noted China holds most of our debts?
I think they can afford to not recover their construction costs because they have the advantage of owning VITAL clean energy transportation in another country, in this case the U.S. They will become the Economic Global Leader in clean energy in the future and we will be at their mercy! Hah! They can shut our economy down if they wanted to.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Meh, whoever owns it, it’s not like they could repossess it and ship the parts to another HSR system.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 12:51 am
Right. It’s not like HSR technology is some secret American technology we’re worried about the Chinese getting their hands on – we don’t make the stuff.
If the Chinese made a profit without a subsidy I’d be amazed. But I’d only consider it WITHOUT revenue guarantees. If they want to take on the risks I’d be happy if they a made a little profit – it would ensure that they are operating it in as cost-effective manner as possible. That’s not what you get with these quasi-public agencies running railroads.
Believe me, if the Chinese wanted to shut down the US economy the last thing they’d need to do is shut down your precious little choo-choo. All they have to do is stop buying Treasuries. They don’t do it because we’re worth more to them alive than dead.
In all honestly I expect the Chinese wouldn’t do it without a bunch of government guarantees or handouts. But we’ll see. I haven’t seen any definitive agreements announced – until then it’s all BS.
BMF From San Diego Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Does California HAVE the ability to borrow funds from other countries? Or, is that a priviledge left to the Country?
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
They wouldn’t be borrowing directly from a foreign government, but from a bank located and likely backed by that government. Not the same thing.
synonymouse Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I just hope that the residents of PAMPA don’t burn themselves and their budgets out on litigation that can’t get anywhere because the system is rigged against them.
So long as Prop 1A is still on the books I doubt any litigation has a snowball’s chance in hell of prevailing in courts where the fix is in.
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 4:06 am
I know, it’s so tyrannical that the desires and best interests of the general population would prevail in a court of law! It’s horrible that our courts are “rigged” in this way.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Thanks for this comment – I knew you’d be along to provide your thoughts. I hoped I was clear in not ascribing my own thoughts to you.
I agree about citizens’ rights to file lawsuits about this stuff. Of course, such suits also have the effect of prolonging the very uncertainty we were discussing.
Everyone’s talking about residential, but what about retail property values? All of these NIMBYs either live in, or make money in Silicon Valley, right?
I say, let’s build the elevated HSR line, build Akihabara underneath the tracks (the real Akihabara was built underneath, in the shadow of, next to and around an existing commuter train station, as well as Shinkansen tracks) and wait for the otaku to come pouring in, searching for cheap electronics, DVDs and cafes.
Okay, maybe not the cafes… too much puritan culture clash for that… but the rest sounds like a winner, doesn’t it?
Spokker Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
James, why do they pixelate the penises and vaginas in Japanese porn?
synonymouse Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
It is a tradition of censorship which I believe dates back to MacArthur and the Occupation.
James Fujita Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Har har.
1) It depends on how you define “porn”
2) Differing community standards
3) How much porn do you watch, anyways?
4) MacArthur helped
5) as all anime fans know, translators make changes…
Andy Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
James – I’ve been to Akihabara and I must say what you suggest makes zero sense. Are you celebrating passage of Prop 19 a bit early?
You do know that the basic HSR plan is to bulldoze a big dirt berm and put the rails on top of it, then add a concrete retaining wall. There’s no plan for any kind of elegant elevated structures. As the cost overruns mount I wouldn’t be surprised to see the construction quality go down, not up – just like the Big Dig.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
No – because of what looks like a miscommunication the retained fill option was eliminated in favor of just aerial structures (which, btw, are much louder).
BTW, I think you are the one celebrating the passage of Prop 19 early, because no one, not even the CHSRA, thinks that you can put dirt in before you build retaining walls.
J. Wong Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
It’s not all aerial right? It’s still at grade from Bayshore to San Bruno, and wouldn’t the existing berms from Belmont through San Carlos also not be aerial?
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
They’re not grade-separating where there are no grades to separate. I’m not sure what’s happening in Belmont and San Carlos though.
James Fujita Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
You know what? My point had absolutely nothing to do with berms or elevated or even street-level rails. Or trenches or tunnels.
As far as my post was concerned, the construction method is irrelevant. It had to do with BUILDING RETAIL NEXT TO THE STATIONS, which doesn’t depend upon elevated structures (although that certainly helps).
Build Akihabara or build a department store next to the new HSR stations. Whatever. You’re going to make money either way, and thanks to Prop. 13, cities need that sales tax.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Sorry James, I misread your post. I’ve had similar thoughts and I certainly would rather have retail under an elevated structure than gravel and homeless people (who will certainly find it good rain shelter – yes they do walk the Caltrain tracks today). The issue of course is lots of that space is in people’s back yards where retail access would be difficult at best. I’m not sure how attractive it would be with a train zipping overhead every three minutes.
It is amazing to hear the alarmist rhetoric on the peninsula. they will lie, cheat and steal and do what it takes to stop it. I as a former Peninsulan for 30+ years cannot take anything they or their puppets on their local councils have to say any longer because they just want to kill a statewide project for fear of “the brown people” or some other bogus reason, and don’t really care if they screw the state in the process. they are literally spending tons of cash on propaganda and political campaigns on the city dime, and in the end will lose. thank GOD these people weren’t around when the original railroad was being built – we’d have no transcontinental railroad if these folks had their way.
BTW, don’t trust any economic anything to these folks – go look at how Burlingame sold off its downtown to the chains – when the chains went bust so did Burlingame avenue! And look at how they have processed to death the rebuild of the decrepit safeway – in ways that would make a hippie NIMBY San Francisco embarassed.
Screw the state? Look, if you guys want to waste your money on this white elephant then why don’t you privately fund it – apparently Japan, China and Korea are ready to lend the money. Then you can even earn a little profit on all the supposed value you create. People will gladly pay if you are creating value in excess of what you charge.
But sadly, HSR doesn’t create value that comes anywhere close to what it would cost to build and operate – that’s why they are trying to stick the bill to the taxpayers. The construction costs alone will be about equal the entire CA budget – that’s a lot of cash to get not much in return.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I think what you must realize is that the majority of posters here do want to waste their money on this project. As taxpayers, they see it as a valuable investment that is worth going into debt for. California has a long history of such things. Is the State Water Project also a “white elephant”? Was the the I-5 connecting North and South a mistake? The iconic Golden Gate Bridge…is that nasty industrial architecture?
Foreign transportation firms are biting at the chance to build an operate the system. But you have to realize that the federal government ain’t going to let a foreign company own our infrastructure. That leaves the state or a contractor. But with the heavy influence of Wall Street, what sort of terms would the contractor ask for? They’d want the state to pay the costs and derive all the profits for themselves because that’s what looks good.
So the state has no choice but to make the investment and let the chips fall where they may. It had to do with the Bridge, the highways, and the aqueducts, and it has to do so again.
Matthew Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 4:23 am
It’s ridiculous to think that it wouldn’t be the state’s role to invest in its own citizens and economy. I realize there are a variety of political views on this forum, but it’s a general political principle that infrastructure investment is a governmental role. The reason for this (for those who forgot their introductory economics course at university) is that you cannot directly capture the benefits of a system solely in terms of ticket prices. Increased real estate values, increased profits at adjacent shops, relocation of corporate offices, etc., are all massive benefits that are not paid for when a rider buys a ticket. Because government is able to collect sales, property, capital gains, corporate, and income tax, they are able to use those funds to provide infrastructure. The economic benefits from the system are difficult to quantify with any guarantee, as the exact numbers are heavily influenced by the macroeconomic climate, but benefits can be expected to be much larger than the cost of the system. In that sense, even though ticket prices might take 5 decades or longer to pay off the capital costs of the system at a maximum profit pricing model, the overall benefit of the system would pay off the capital costs much faster. Those benefits, however, are only seen directly by the state as a whole and not by whatever agency or commercial organization would be collecting passenger fares. In fact, the overall benefits to the economy are in opposition to maximum fare revenue, and the state would be well positioned to make the decision to reduce fares in order to trade off ticket receipts for increased economic activity.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 1:50 am
These are exactly the arguments trotted out for football and baseball stadium projects. A careful analysis of the actual effects show that most of them are not real in overall terms, they mostly relocate economic activity from one location to another – at a very high transaction cost. Do you think it’s money well spend to charge taxpayers to move economic activity from town A to town B? If you live in town B you probably think yes, and that’s just the problem – the town B people get together and try to convince everyone that it’ll be good for everybody, when really they just have their hand in your pocket.
Do you support cities paying to build sports facilities too – or is your view mostly based on who’s getting the subsidy – sports team owners or train riders? In other words, people you don’t like versus people you do like. I’m checking if your position is principled or just motivated by self-interest.
Clem Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
HSR doesn’t create value that comes anywhere close to what it would cost to build and operate – that’s why they are trying to stick the bill to the taxpayers.
This is a nice example of a myopic libertarian outlook. HSR does create value, but the value doesn’t accrue to “investors”… it accrues to the public over the very long term, far beyond the time horizon of any return on investment calculation that a profit-making business would entertain on behalf of its shareholders. That’s why, quite appropriately, the taxpayer funds the system. It would be an insane investor who invests for a return to someone else.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 1:24 am
The “public good” arguments in favor of HSR are significantly exaggerated, as are the supposed benefits to non-riders. Public good arguments are common when a small group of users wants a subsidy. Water is a universally used public good, roads nearly so. I believe the tolls on the Bay Bridge have paid for it in it’s entirely and the replacement may well prove to be economic despite the overruns because the demand profile is pretty favorable. That is, it creates value for users in excess of it’s fully allocated costs. Airport users pay ticket taxes to fund airport construction – except Congress steals it to spend on other stuff. In most of these cases we at least try to allocate the costs (including the capital costs) of the good to the users. We could do better with roads by funding them from fees on gas, but the teamsters hate that – even though they put most of the wear and tear on roads. Better to use the public good argument and get a subsidy.
The issue with HSR is that it’s not economic and so you see all kinds of really spurious analyses to try to show benefits to non-riders. I’ve looked at the assumptions and they are predominantly BS. The real issue is that proponents of HSR don’t want to pay the true cost of train travel so they try to get the rest of us to subsidize it for them – it a self-centered approach. Faced with the true costs of a ticket, they’d fly or drive, but taking the train makes them feel “progressive”, so we end up with another expensive white elephant.
MarkB Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
The “teamsters hate it” thing makes absolutely no sense. By your rationale, Republicans should be itching to raise gas taxes because the party is generally anti-union. The transportation bill is still being kicked around Congress… how many Republican proposals have there been to raise the gas tax?
Another way you make no sense is that big-rigs burn diesel, which has a tax profile that’s different from gasoline. Congressional Republicans (or State Republicans) could raise the gas tax all they want and it would barely affect teamsters. So… where are the proposals?
The sun is setting earlier these days. Must be the fault of the unions. Union bosses hate sunny days.
I wonder if an elevated aerial is actually cheaper than a trench? It may not be. Maybe it would be just a cheap to sink it in a trench. If the NIMBYs mind the “Berlin Wall” maybe they wouldn’t mind a moat. It might remind them of old English castles of yesteryear (minus the crocs). Last but not least. Why not build it at grade as Caltrain is today? I bet that’d be cheaper.
Joey Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Why not build it at grade as Caltrain is today?
Because you’ve got a buttload of grade crossings which need to be separated. Ultimately, moving the roads above or below the rails could be worse for property values than the worst imaginable aerial structure, because driveway access would be cut off for around 400′ on each side of the tracks. You could leave the crossings, but the increase in trains from about 5 tph per direction to realistically 10 or 12 and unrealistically 20 trains per direction per hour will have significant effects on traffic.
One of the issues with trenches I think is that there are numerous streams which cross the corridor, and diverting these is not desirable for a number of reasons.
Jeff Carter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 4:28 am
‘because driveway access would be cut off for around 400′ on each side of the tracks.’
Nonsense!
Why do grade separations need to be elevated or trenched trackway?
Is this just to raise the cost of HSR?
I do not buy into the idea that putting the road under the track requires taking of corner properties hundreds of yards (or feet, depending on who you listen to) each side of the tracks. Example, Caltrain built a grade separation at Hillcrest in Millbrae without taking huge amount of properties. This crossing used to be a pedestrian crossing / emergency fire lane to the Bayside Manor neighborhood in Millbrae. It is now grade separated and has room for (4) four tracks. Why doesn’t HSR take this approach for all grade separations on the peninsula?
Why not compromise by raising the tracks by six feet and take the roads down 10-12 feet?
In Burlingame there are something like 7 creeks that run under the right of way, and there are several more in San Mateo.
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 7:02 am
Immediately adjacent to the track, the road will be a couple of dozen feet above or below the ground level.
Driveways are at ground level.
Houses very close to the tracks will loose driveway access.
Jeff Carter Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:03 am
If you go over the tracks, the road must be around 25 feet over the tracks. If you go under the tracks the road only has to go around 16 feet under the tracks.
In the Hillcrest/Millbrae example, there are homes within 150 feet or less of the tracks, none of which lost driveway access. Additionally, the BART subway runs under the depressed Hillcrest grade separation.
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Closer to to 30/20, because of the height of the actual structures. But maybe I did overestimate (I’m using the Authority’s diagrams here). In any case, there are numerous cases where driveway access would be lost. Keep in mind though that different crossings may be dealt with in different ways. For instance, it makes sense to drop Alma Street in Palo Alto below the rails because there is not much immediately adjacent to the crossing that needs driveway access. Other crossings in PA will likely be separated by raising the rails, possibly combined with dropping the road a little too.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
hey! maybe they should build the trench with an attractive, bucolic yet useful canal on top for freight then you’ve solved several problems at once. eliminate the freights tracks, let the crossing streams etc, feed in and and out of the canal, put the trains underground, and create a scenic wildlife corridor with good fishing for you dinner!
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
uh – like this I mean.
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
whats up with the links…. ugh. hello
jimsf Reply:
October 24th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
look caltrainrow
and trench with canal on top
see the resemblance.
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 8:32 am
403 on the second one.
Andy Reply:
October 27th, 2010 at 1:27 am
It’s perfect – the whole thing can be under water physically AND financially.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/12/13/19913/110
It doesn’t have to look ugly!
OT
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-disclosure-20101025,0,7950616.story
“California bullet train agency can’t document details of officials’ foreign trips
The travel was funded by governments of nations whose companies may seek contracts on the massive project. Disclosure of information on such trips is generally required by state ethics regulations”
Here is my favorite part of the story:
“We never asked, ‘Who’s paying for it?’ ” said Morshed, recalling a trip he took to France a few years ago arranged by the French Consulate.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Wait, what? Potential investors can’t pay to have you come see their equipment for evaluation? Travesty?!?!?
It would be different if we had a robust HSR system in this country, but gees mountain out of a molehill really…
A “little” off-thread breaking news.
Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearingen and Congressman Jim Costa are announcing $715 million in federal funding toward construction of a Central Valley segment.
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=16667
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/10/25/2131295/valley-to-get-high-speed-rail.html
Eminent domain expenses will be less costly if prices on the peninsula decrease substantially. The lawsuits against the environmental reports could easily drive down prices enough to offset the legal fees of the authority.