How High Speed Rail Is Crucial to the Valley’s Economic Future
Back in August, Manteca Bulletin managing editor Dennis Wyatt attacked the California High Speed Rail project, claiming that nobody would ride the trains and therefore it wasn’t a sound investment. This blog did the usual demolition job on this HSR denial, pointing out the numerous ways that the evidence disproved Wyatt’s assumptions.
Unfortunately for Manteca residents, Wyatt is back at it again. Today’s op-ed is titled High speed rail means quicker trip to poor house. It’s an equally absurd column, making the claim that HSR riders will simply bypass the Valley cities, leaving only SF and LA to benefit. While it’s nice to see that Wyatt now implicitly acknowledges ridership won’t be a problem on the system, his new argument is deeply misleading to suggest that the Valley will not see any economic benefits from the project.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Valley is already well on the road to the poor house, owing to its dependence on oil. Manteca boomed in the ’00s as it attracted new residents leaving the Bay Area in search of affordable homes to own. But when the price of oil hit $3/gal in 2006, the bubble began to burst. San Joaquin County was one of the hardest hit places in the country by the crash, and as gas prices haven’t dipped below $3 even despite the deep recession, you’d think that opinion makers in the county would understand the danger of oil dependence and the need to get off of it. But not Wyatt, who never mentions the topic at all in his column.
Wyatt’s basic claim is that HSR will simply carry people from SF to LA and back, effectively bypassing the Valley even though there are stations there:
There are not a large number of folks in the San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles clamoring to take a high speed rail train to Fresno, Bakersfield or Merced. With all due respect to the three valley cities, high speed rail never was about economic development in the southern valley. It is about moving people between state’s two major metro regions.
This is simply wrong. If economic development was no consideration, if Valley ridership was no consideration, then the trains would have been routed along Interstate 5, a true bypass of the Valley. But that would have been stupid, since the purpose of a train is to carry passengers, and the Valley has a lot of potential passengers. Wyatt sees none of this, however:
Bullet trains around the globe benefit primarily by heavy commuter ridership and certainly not pleasure riders. There is no major commute between Bakersfield and Fresno. Nor is there a major commute from the southern valley to Los Angeles or Merced to the Bay Area.
Wyatt has no source for the first claim, that HSR around the world primarily serves commuters and not pleasure travelers. HSR systems around the world do a healthy and robust business in serving both kinds of travelers, as well as business travelers.
But it is the second claim that I want to spend some time discussing. The reason why HSR will benefit the Valley is that it will provide to cities with stations the same benefits that Manteca itself enjoyed during the ’00s boom – except this time, the benefits will last because their basis is sustainable.
Manteca’s role as a Bay Area bedroom community ended when it became too expensive to commute between the two cities. It’s true that right now Merced and Bakersfield aren’t bedroom communities for the coastal metropolises. But neither was Manteca 20 years ago. Cheap oil meant that Manteca could serve that role, but that wasn’t sustainable. Electric passenger trains, powered by renewable energy, can provide a sustainable basis for cities like Fresno and Bakersfield to be bedroom communities for the Bay Area. This is similar to what happened to Ciudad Real when the Madrid-Sevilla AVE line opened in 1992, as the Wall Street Journal explained in 2009:
erhaps the most striking example is Ciudad Real, a scrappy town 120 miles south of Madrid in Castilla-La Mancha which, Mr. Ureña says, “had completely vanished from the map.” In medieval times, the town was a key stopover point on the route between the two of most important cities of the time, Córdoba and Toledo. But the railway and the highway south later bypassed the town, and Ciudad Real began to wither.
Now it has an AVE station that puts it just 50 minutes away from Madrid, and Ciudad Real has come alive. The city has attracted a breed of daily commuters that call themselves “Avelinos.” The AVE helped attract a host of industries to Ciudad Real, and the train is full in both directions.
Indra, an information technology company, moved a “software factory” to Ciudad Real a decade ago. “Along with the University, the AVE was one of the key reasons we moved here,” says Ángel Villodre, the director of the center.
The University of Castilla-La Mancha’s campus here has grown sharply in size and importance. “The school is here because of the AVE,” says Mr. Menéndez, the department head. “Without it, it would be impossible to attract the high-level staff we need.”
Ciudad Real went from being a small town outside the Madrid urban core to a major center of residential and high-tech activity. Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield all have state universities. They would all be tied in directly to the high-tech economies of the Bay Area and Southern California, enabling Valley residents to take jobs on the coasts – or enabling tech companies to relocate to the Valley.
The latter scenario is one that Wyatt should consider – but isn’t. At the outset of his op-ed he says that HSR isn’t like the Depression Era Central Valley Project because unlike the canal, HSR won’t deliver lasting jobs. But in fact, HSR may work just like the CVP, delivering jobs by delivering people and capital to the Valley the way the CVP delivered water.
The Valley has more usable land for a lower price than anywhere in the Bay Area or Southern California. A tech company looking to set up a R&D shop, a factory, or something else entirely could find bargain prices in the Valley – and thanks to HSR, can actually get their skilled workers out to these locations quickly and affordably without actually asking them to relocate. And with new businesses locating in the Valley – just as some relocated to Ciudad Real – it gives more of an opportunity for Valley residents to take those jobs too.
Wyatt’s problem is he cannot imagine any other reality than the one that currently exists in Manteca. The notion of a bullet train that serves as a conduit for labor, capital and innovation to be moved from the coasts to the Valley is one that for whatever reason he is completely unable to comprehend. Even though the evidence shows that mid-route cities are some of the biggest beneficiaries of HSR systems, Wyatt still clings to the strange belief that California’s experience will somehow be different.
Maybe Wyatt needs to visit Spain and take the AVE from Madrid to Ciudad Real to see this for himself. HSR is crucial to the Valley’s future. We know that the surest way for the Valley to remain in the poor house is to do nothing and let the failed status quo continue. Let’s hope that the Valley keeps working to make HSR a reality – and that Wyatt eventually catches up to that reality.
Why is it absurd? Everything north of Fresno gets completely bypassed, including Manteca.
Howard Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 12:35 am
Modesto, Stockton and Sacramento get CHSR stations in phase two.
Manteca residents could take ACE to Stockton to get on CHSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:10 am
Manteca residents who are so masochistic as to ride ACE voluntarily are probably going to just go to San Francisco for a more intense BDSM session.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Manteca’s problem is that they never get to the focus on urban expansion near the Delta. HSR is going to stop in Modesto and Stockton. That service will slurp many a commuters away from ACE. And even if BART goes that far out they don’t need Manteca either. Stockton, Tracy, and Modesto are far bigger fish from the BART-monster.
A note regarding Cuidad Real: Fares for Cuidad Real are comparable to those that might be expected for Bakersfield-Los Angeles, without subsidy, at the 24 cents per mile rate currently used by CAHSRA (22.5 euros/30.22 dollars vs 34 dollars with the Palmdale routing). That’s on the Avant high speed commuter train, AVE fares are rather higher. It does suggest that there might be a degree of commuter possibility from the Central Valley to LA and the Bay Area (although I suspect not too terribly strongly given that there are a plethora of other locations, likely to be more desirable, within the same time frame and likely cheaper, via rail within the Greater LA area alone).
joe Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:52 am
Might I suggest timetables.
Compare a commute from Gilroy to Plao/Alto Stanford via Caltrain and Fresno to PA/Stanford (assuming a PA station). Fresno is the shorter trip.
Cost? Well Stanford Leland Jr Univ pays 100% of the cost for a faculty/staff Caltrain/VTA pass. It’s probable that those employers who participate in alternative commute programs will pay similar cost for a HSR commuter.
Expensive? Not as much as srunning a fleet of private, free wi-fi enabled buses for employees to commute in from places like half moon bay or SF.
Joey Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:24 am
Getting to PA will almost certainly involve a poorly designed transfer at this point.
joe Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:53 am
What’s this point? The peninsula station will be somehwere – ideally for HSR in PA but maybe RWC or MtV?
PA isn’t destined to be the dominate city. As of now, the center of gravity for start-ups moved south to MtV. Sunnyvale’s build up massive office space near their Caltrain station.
I’m not 100% sure the interests that guide the City of PA would be stupid enough to let the HSR station go elsewhere. Leland Stanford didn’t make his fortune on cotton. The sound of trains is the sound of money.
Joey Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:48 am
All indications suggest that the mid-peninsula stop will be RWC at this point. Plus, neither the city of Palo Alto, the businesses there, or Stanford have made any noticeable push to make sure the station is in PA.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Apples to oranges. That comparison would also require consideration of the upgraded Caltrain trains (and, for that matter, HSR from Gilroy to PA/Stanford).
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
You missed the point – reality.
The current real world has Caltrain service and it’s used. The time for commuting to PA today is longer than Fresno HSR.
This comparison with reality proves the distance/time is NOT too long for a HSR service that is faster than what is working today.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Ciudad Real fares are highly subsidized fwiw .
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Source?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
The Renfe presentation to the board made it clear that while AVE and Media services were expected to be operationally self supporting, Avant was not. There are details in the Renfe annual statement http://www.renfe.com/EN/docs/2008_public_business_enterprise_renfe.pdf as to the extent (it is a little hard to sort out the various subsidies but avant is definitely getting money)
Here is an article that talks a little more about this: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_9_46/ai_n26705476/
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 2:09 am
so how did “it is a little hard to sort out the various subsidies but avant is definitely getting money” become “… is highly subsidized..” ?
Max Wyss Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 3:04 am
The annual report of Renfe of 2008 does not show the term “Avant” at all; it neither shows the term “media distancia” nor even “media” or “medium”.
Passenger operation of Renfe is divided into “long-distance” services (including High Speed services) and “suburban and regional” services. Long distance services are at full responsibility of Renfe, and no public money is contributed. Regional and suburban services are ordered by the state (and regional or local authorities), and accordingly paid for.
The annual report shows in particular NO DETAILS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL SERVICES. Therefore, this annual report is not able to say whether the Madrid-Ciudad Real services get subsidies or not. Note that an agreed fee the state pays to the operator to operate a certain service can NOT BE CALLED “SUBSIDY”, because it is something ordered, and if it were not ordered, the service would not be provided.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
The May RENFE Presentation has a good slide on Avant, which shows the Ciudad Real route (page 27,http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/232/f8663924-d330-4abf-ba2d-e295d2546db7.pdf (big file):
Avant – High speed “regional”
Public service fares, approved by the government
Single class
Functional train
Financial compensations negotiated on a multi-year basis
The Avant service is the “regional” listed on the subsidies page.
The reason the fares are so low is that the government decided to subsidize them.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:05 am
“Financial compensations negotiated on a multi year basis” can mean many things.
It could mean the fares are highly subsidized. It could mean the fares are set so that RENFE breaks even on it with an assurance by the government that if ridership is low the government will make up the difference. It could mean the government sets fares so that RENFE only makes 2% on regional services instead of the almost 20% they make on high speed long distance services….
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:27 am
I believe they do the subsidies on a 5 year basis, but maybe there is someone who knows more details?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 9:47 am
So you don’t know the details? Yet they are “highly subsidized”. Hmmm.
Max Wyss Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 2:32 am
Interesting presentation, and definitely worthwile looking at.
I am not sure whether I can follow the last conclusion.
“Government” approves the fares, as service public fares. The approved fares may not cover the costs, therefore, “government” pays for the difference. Why would “government” do that? For example, because that does not make it necessary for “government” to spend money for extending the highways; for example, because “government” saves money because road accidents don’t happen, etc.
How much is the price for the service public? For Madrid – Ciudad Real, it can kind of be guesstimated from a table in the presentation, which compares the various fares (which must be weighted by the service provided); the Avant service is essentially the low-cost equivalent: cattle class, no particular services provided.
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
I assure you that a Palo Alto resident fully understands the need for subsiidized train fares.
Palo Alto requires Stanford U offer subsidized Bus and Train passes to ALL employees. 100% free and clear. It reduces traffic congestion and preserves a quality of life.
Yes Elizabeth’s wonderful world of upper middle class Palo Alto with good jobs and walkable streets requires 100% subsidized train fares – free train fares for all Stanford employees and also the 5 B new hospital expansion also mandates the same benefit.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 8:49 am
That’s not a government subsidized fare, it’s a fare subsidizing a government purchased service. Furthermore, it doesn’t prove your statement that fares are “heavily subsidized;” to determine that we need the farebox recovery ratio.
peninsula Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Elizabeth – is this legal?
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/07/more-train-to-nowhere-funding/
“The announcement of plans to use last year’s budget authority to appropriate more High-Speed Rail funds was sent this week to legislators on the state’s budget and appropriations committees by the California Department of Finance.
The finance department stated in the letter that it wanted to make these changes to the current 2011-12 budget under the authority of the Budget Act of 2010. But some Capitol sources say that the finance department does not have the authority to do this.
The letter was apparently triggered by a request from the High-Speed Rail Authority for an additional $65 million — $32.5 million Rail Bonds and $32.5 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, also known as “stimulus” funds.
In the letter signed by Finance Department Chief Deputy Director Michael Cohen, the department claims authority to authorize the expenditure “of up to $121.5 million High-Speed Rail Passenger Bonds and $121.5 ARRA funds in excess of the amount originally appropriated for acquisition.”
But the money referenced in the letter was excess bond issuance for 2010-11, according to a Capitol source The finance department cannot just go ahead and use the money without the Legislature approving and appropriating it formally, under the 2011-12 budget year. Balances can’t just be carried over and then used at the discretion of the finance department.”
Peter Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 5:24 am
Sorry, is Elizabeth now an expert on California law, too? I just ask because it’s getting hard to keep trak of.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
She slept in a Holiday Inn last night….
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
I found this: http://www.ferropedia.es/wiki/Costes_del_ferrocarril:_servicios
It claims that Ciudad has 68% fare recovery, Toledo has pretty high 92%(for regional, not AVE) and towns like Huesca have 8%.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
A lot of detail on history of subsidies http://www.ferropedia.es/wiki/Avant_Madrid_-_Ciudad_Real_-_Puertollano (in Spanish google translate works okay)
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Yes, I think we taxpayers plain out gave the airlines 12 Billion after 9/11 – thery needed the money to keep in business. No subsidy, just free money ‘cuase private airlines are critical.
mike Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:45 am
22.5 Euros is the full fare. A commuter would buy a 50 ride pass and pay much less – 9 Euros per ride, or 10 cents per mile. FWIW, this makes the Avant fares even lower than Caltrain’s on a per-mile basis. Of course, Avant’s operating costs are also much lower than Caltrain’s on a per-mile basis.
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
And Caltrain recovers ~65% of operating costs at the fare box. That is to say Caltrain is subsidized.
Nobody rides trains the the valley? He should ride the San Joaquin, very few people go from end to end (LA-Oakland or LA-Sacramento). The core ridership is in the valley, with many people starting and ending their trip in Fresno and Bakersfield.
Wait a second…
I know what’s going on here. Manteca is sad because they don’t have trains. The San Joaquin is celebrating hitting 100,000 passengers for the first time ever….but Manteca doesn’t have a stop! (click my name if youd like to look at pretty June ridership charts).
Why don’t they have a stop? No clue.
Their population number certainly seems to support it.
Merced: 78,958 train
Turlock: 68,549 train
Manteca: 67,096 NO amtrak train (ACE service)
Madera: 43,207 train
Wasco: 25,545 train
Corcoran: 24,813 train
Perhaps if the SJ stopped in their fair city, they’d change their tune….? Because of course “nobody” rides trains. Just like “nobody” rides planes in Manteca.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 12:21 am
… Manteca ….Why don’t they have a stop?
Because the tracks the trains run on don’t go through Manteca?
JJJ Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:31 am
Oh. Um, yeah. Minor detail I may have missed.
Damn BNSF and their less useful routing. In an ideal world, Amtrak would use the UPRR corridor because that one actually hits the damn cities.
The Visalia could be served, cities like Modesto and Madera would have station in actual civilization, and people would see the train while driving on 99 and think “oh look, thats an option”
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:15 am
“people would see the train while driving on 99 and think “oh look, thats an option”
You don’t realize how strong a motivation that can be, and I speak from experience.
When you are in your car fighting drowsiness and a TGV shoots past, you really wish you were in the train. On the other hand, if you’re in the train, you can’t help smiling when you see the highway traffic apparently moving backwards at full speed.
I used to believe SNCF had built tracks along freeways just to make drivers feel lousy and TGV riders feel triumphant, but I was told the reasons were economic and technical. Well, it’s two birds with one stone, then.
Donk Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:42 am
This is definitely a motivator for the Pacific Surfliner, especially on Friday afternoons and Sunday evenings, when the train runs adjacent to the 5 freeway in the San Onofre-Oceanside region.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Just to illustrate what a freeway looks like when seeen from the TGV:
LINK
The freeway is not congested, so the cars that seem to race backwards are doing at least 82mph.
ericmarseille Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
When I was still living in the Parisian Region, and I was taking the A10, I often was overtaken by TGVs going “only” 200km/h in that very spectacular valley between Marcoussis and St-jean-de-Beauregard, where the highway and the LGV are side by side for a while ; shit, the scenery, the surprise effect (the TGV came out from a tunnel to cross the valley), the three-dimensional aspect that the slope of the valley was giving to the scene, the sight of that huge train gliding silently at twice our speed, it was so spectacular, I always wished I were inside the train.
One week ago I was in St Gratien, Paris northern suburb, on a sunny morning, and i saw for the first time an A380 approaching Roissy (oops, I meant “Charles de Gaulle Airport” – how pompous!) ; simply glorious.
But coming back to HSR, nothing, but really nothing, did beat the eerie feeling that I had each time I took the TGV, back in the 90′s, from Massy to Lyon when I was visiting my mother ; I just couldn’t get used to the fact that yes, I had made it DOOR TO DOOR in 2h30 min ; by plane it would have been 4 hours, by car at least 5 hours, rather 6 ; it takes some time to get used to the fact that yes, you started the trip in the middle of the morning and still you are on time for lunch.
Oh and hey, yesterday I mentioned that Fresno will join the NIMBY party soon enough.
You know the fear and misinformation?
It’s heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere.
http://fresnobeehive.com/news/2011/10/city_council_gets_sobering_les.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:22 am
I don’t know much about Fresno, as I don’t live in California, but let me guess. . .
Fresno has a freeway running through it, right?
The freeway disrupted things a lot when it was built, right?
So, where were the protests and complaints back then? Where are the protests and complaints today about gasoline?
Is there opposition to new road projects in Fresno?
The freeway has problems too, I betcha. . .could use an alternative method of transportation that doesn’t totally rely on cheap petroleum, right?
My fellow citizens have turned into a bunch of stupid wimps, and the politicians are the worst of all.
If we get an American dictator, it will be because the rest of us have turned to wimps and idiots. He or she will rise because he or she will be the only one with enough guts and brains for the post.
I wouldn’t blame the dictator as much as the rest of us.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:58 am
When I was a student I was told “positive thinking” allowed America to progress faster than France. We were taught Americans always saw the positive aspects of a situation and got things moving while we French endlessly analysed negative aspects and failed to act.
Yet, when I read articles and blogs, including comments, I see the exact reverse of what I was taught. HSR is all doom and gloom and, excuse me, California seems like a huge set of crybabies.
Either my teachers got it all wrong, or America is not what it used to be.
joe Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:59 am
We have always had the naysayers – FDR had his fights and Father Coughlin antagonists. The problem this time is the Dem leadership stupidly thinks triangulating is better than leading, that financial transactions measure productivity.
synonymouse Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:59 am
There’s an easy, simple, and cheap solution to the Fresno City Council’s worries and concerns. Re-locate to I-5.
thatbruce Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:04 am
World hunger? Use I-5. Annoying NIMBYs? I-5. Non-profitable routing? I-5.
It really is your answer to everything.
synonymouse Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:30 am
You forgot world peace.
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Not if they want an HSR station or have UPRR grade-separated through town.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Why would the City Council move 50 miles out of town?
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:19 am
I just watched the video of that city council meeting, and I don’t see where the article’s “I’m not kidding — those seven Fresno City Council members on Thursday had the thousand-yard stare in their eyes when Mozier was done with them” line comes from.
They were asking intelligent questions, and were making constructive suggestions. I didn’t get any of the NIMBY vibe off of them.
Least we forget. The economic benefits of HSR were documented.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/09/highspeedrail.aspx
Donk Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Yeah, but that is not relevant here. This is a-MER-ica!
Similarly, I love the argument about how the Canadians, Dutch, and British have had openly gay people serving in the military for years without problems, and people here dismissed that point as one to justify the law change here because somehow America is different. Fools.
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Montabaur is an interesting example. The only areas where tracks are above ground are at the station and along the highways. It goes UNDER entire neighborhoods and UNDER farmland. Germany’s HSR is a class act when it goes through these smaller towns.
California should learn from the Montabaur case. Unlike CA, Germany doesn’t f*#& the towns it goes through. Therefore, conclusions drawn in Germany don’t necessarily apply here. Fresno and Bakersfield will have to deal with a large number of displaced homes and businesses. We don’t know if they’ll relocate within town, move, or close up altogether. Montabaur did not face those challenges. Montabaur’s beauty was not desecrated with noisy, ugly aerial structures. They did not bother attempting to lipstick a pig. Because Montabaur retained its charm, it had a head start to being prosperous.
If California proposed to build something like what Europeans are used to, we’d see less opposition.
synonymouse Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:20 am
PB does not play frou-frou tunnels. If it ‘s California, it’s Brutalist.
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Wrong twice.
synonymouse Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Mea culpa. I forgot the enclave that insists on boring tunnels that are unnecessarily four levels deep. Elsewhere if you want tunnels better lawyer-up, lobby-up and pay-up big time. See Berkeley.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Germany also has high construction costs, and a perennial problem of cost overruns. In Norway, a 40% overrun on the airport line led to parliamentary investigations. In Germany, 100%+ overruns have happened multiple times.
Fullerton could be home to new Vegas train
OC Register
http://www.ocregister.com/news/vegas-320794-train-fullerton.html
Donk Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:53 am
Why wouldn’t they run all the way to LAUS?
Oh, and I love this quote: “One woman said she welcomed business in Fullerton, but was concerned about the train service attracting more drunk people downtown.”
Ben Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Have you looked at the X Train website? It looks like a 100% scam. I’m far from certain about the Desert Xpress, and this make the Desert Xpress look like a pretty solid proposal.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
They are, Fullerton is just intermediate on their way there. This is going to wind up an epic failure however. It’s longer than driving or flying and costs 2-3 times airfare. Not surprisingly, they’re a penny stock.
Also, their website makes me want to kill their web developer.
Metrolink is the *only* commuter system going through Fullerton. I really don’t trust this guy to know what the heck he is talking about.
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 8:49 am
I love how their website shows them using old EMD F-series locomotive.
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Except for this picture titled “Motive Power”, which was literally photoshopped off of
this picture from wikipedia’s article on the Capitol Corridor.
They have high class.
Joey Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Where do they plan to get the money for this equipment if they can’t even hire someone who has minimal photoshop experience?
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 8:58 am
According to their website, it will be $99. It doesn’t say whether that’s one-way or round-trip.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Article says CEO says it’s one way.
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:55 am
That’s cheaper than Southwest’s Wanna Get Away fare for LAX-LAS at $114 each way.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Only if you’re making a spur of the moment decision to fly. Most people plan these things in advance.
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:01 am
That price was for the next seven days. How far in advance do you think people are planning these things? Sure, a vacation is going to be planned well in advance, but a businessperson will often not be planning those types of trips more than a few days in advance.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I really, really doubt that business trips form a significant number of trips to Vegas.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Las Vegas is the country’s largest convention destination. If going to a convention is a business trip there will be business trips to Las Vegas from Southern California. There’s 2 million people in greater Las Veags so you can expect the same kind of business trip traffic from Las Vegas as you can expect from places like Bakersfield or Fresno.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Business conventions are announced and planned awhile in advance, airlines are still going to beat this train on pricing, not to mention time value of money.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Still, considering the amount of air traffic Southwest routes through Las Vegas to boomerang up to the Bay Area or L.A, there has got to be a tipping point as far as time/price trade-offs.
What’s real ominous about this is that if BNSF is offering access to the Southern Transcon for a even an inflated price…that means it’s running empty trains from the ports and that augurs real trouble in the larger economy.
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:12 am
No one’s going to take a 5.5 hour train ride to Vegas and then get on a plane.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
No, that’s not what I meant Peter.
I was saying that many of Southwest’s flights from Las Vegas to California are necessitated by their “bus-stop” flight model. In other words, Southwest doesn’t have a choice, it has to fly the planes even empty to re-position. At some time/price point any train could run them out of business, but I don’t know how low LUV will go and how fast this X Train chimera is supposed to run. But if the train is four hours and 25% cheaper than flying, you gotta figure it will get passengers.
…that is if this isn’t some late-night TV informerical scam….
Wyatt tends to think Manteca should be considered a Bay Area exurb. He also tends to try to look at it as a better place than the rest of the SJV.
He is very much in favor of both ACE and HSR over Altamont to allow more exurb housing to be built in Manteca and surrounding areas. In July (similiar to the August column) he wrote that HSR and ACE should share Altamont with a connection station to BART in Livermore.
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/15850/
Recently he argued that Bay Area families would spend $350 or more per night to stay in Manteca if Great Wolf Lodges and Waterslides built there. His reasoning? The old Oakwood/Manteca Waterslide complex was popular, forgetting that it was an inexpensive family spot not $350/night for a room in Manteca.
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/26217/
Given what your wrote, it’s likely Wyatt worries HSR will shift resources and attention away from Manteca to other SJV cities.
Also, he’s hot for what he says are ~500 low paying jobs, what a visionary.
“There are not a large number of folks in the San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles clamoring to take a high speed rail train to Fresno, Bakersfield or Merced.”
One could substitute any nearby suburb for Fresno, Bakersfield, or Merced in that sentence… a lot of my friends who live and work in SF see no reason to ever leave the city. But there sure are a lot of folks in Fresno, Bakersfield, and Merced who would like to be able to get to San Francisco or Los Angeles!
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:23 am
There are actually a lot of people living in the Bay Area or LA who have friends and family in the Valley, and who currently have to drive every time they go to see them. They would love to have a train, instead.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:43 am
And hard to believe, there are people in Bakersfield who want to go to Fresno. And in Fresno who want to go to Bakersfield. And people in Los Angeles who want to go to Sacramento. And people in Fullerton who want to go to Merced. And people in Gilroy who want to go to Anaheim. And….
James in PA Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
You will be able to get from Cloverdale to Santee by rail and ferry. Or Chula Vista to Folsom. And it will only get better as we add connections.
Kevin McCarthy follows through and introduces bill to freeze the HSR project’s federal funds.
http://kevinmccarthy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=601:mccarthy-introduces-legislation-to-hold-californias-high-speed-rail-project-accountable-10711&catid=14:press-releases
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Who cares? It will never pass the Senate.
Tony d. Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Robert,
Have you ever considered banning anyone from this blog? (Just a thought ;)
Donk Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 8:30 am
I just think of Morris as a free news-gathering resource.
Walter Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 11:32 am
If Morris wants to show the links he likes to a blog audience, he totally should. On his blog.
That’s actually the problem.
The Valley is a very lucrative export-driven economy with no real need (in theory) to house call centers for Apple. We would be stupid to diminish Ag’s role in the Valley. That being said, however, the reliance on cheap farm labor is a problem and the fiscalization of land turns every regional planning issue upside down.
Gallo for example is already based in Modesto and HSR would only make them likely to stay or expand. Roll International, headed by Stew Resnik is based in West LA and I’m sure he would rather be buried alive than move his headquarters to Bakersfield.
What we really need is more manufacturing in … urban areas… And what we really need in the Valley are more businesses like Gallo, McClatchy, and the ol’ A & W’s
flowmotion Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Exactly. Because of the cheap land costs, Valley development = Sprawl development. Let’s say a few tech companies do move offices to Fresno. While a small number of executives are zooming back to HQ on HSR, the other 90% of employees will be driving every day to the office. Which means new subdivisions, new box stores, new freeways.
The counter argument seems to be that the mere presence of a HSR station will create a new urbanist mentality and Fresno will suddenly transform into a streetcar city with European densities (with similar land development restrictions). Far more likely it turns into something like San Jose, where a small hollow ‘downtown’ is surrounded by endless suburbia.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
More hilarious delusionality.
Tech companies already have fine places “to set up a R&D shop, a factory, or something else entirely” at “bargain prices”. Those places have names like “India” and “China”.
PS I just checked on Google Earth and didn’t spot the High Speed Rail Lines that must run from San José, the Capital of Silicon Valley, to Bungalore and Shenzhen to support that, but I’m sure it’s my fault for not looking closely enough — they’re probably in a trench because of all the evil NIMBYs or something.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
You have to wonder though if energy does become more expensive if that holds up.
Our biggest problem is that if move all our manufacturing back from China there’s no one to buy our T-Bills that subsidize our defense spending and our hyper-inflationary monetary policy.
But can we not build the type of facilities that we need here? I think, contrary to what GE might say, it would be not that hard at all.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Nope, you don’t have to wonder much.
Telecom is dirt cheap and will only get cheaper compared to shipping bodies around the state or country or world.
Transoceanic shipping (not air-shipping, so add a couple days) is efficient and dirt cheap.
People in China and India and many other places are educated and smart and perfectly capable of doing “white people”‘s jobs.
There are many good reasons to build HSR in California, but imaging it will result in Apple setting up an R&D center in Modesto in order to take advantage of the skilled and technically educated local population isn’t one of them.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Well wait a minute here.
If the factories move back to the US from Asia, the R&D will come back just as a matter of course.
Apple though, is a good example of a company that might withstand higher energy prices and gain from keeping its factories in Shenzhen. But companies with cheaper products aren’t going to stay abroad if there’s no energy AND labor subsidy.
But I’ll say this: it seems like Robert wants HSR to be some sort of vehicle for social justice. Yet, if anything the Valley just has (as does much of California) a big gap between the fortunate and the proletariat not some sort of structural dysfunction. It has a functioning economy and produces highly desired products.
Of interest however, is this change to be closer to Lemoore which is the largest master jet base….that could spur some real employment growth.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
You won’t hear me argue against social justice. Half-wits who spout “social justice!” on the other hand…
joe Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Sadly, we’re fairly competitive globally in 2011 because of low wages – you might don’t get out and about that much to see it. Can’t find it on the intertubes.
Isn’t Ford moving next gen Fusion manufacturing from Mexico to the US. GM Sonic is built with Union wage – 14/hr. BMW and Japan moving more manufacturing here.
Telecom? Why isn’t The Google using telecom? Face to face matters – not daily but the kind of easy travel HSR can support – yes it makes sense with our crappy wages and 20% unemployment to manufacture in the USA.
Transoceanic shipping – not getting cheaper.
That “white people”‘s comment – What?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Quadruple energy costs and it still won’t matter, nativists, racists, isolationists, or for that matter “locavores” and similar pseudo-enviro dim-wittery notwithstanding. Bulk and containerized shipping doesn’t make the 50 threats to the planet: on the contrary.
“you might don’t get out and about that much to see it.”
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
The boats still run on diesel. Efficient yes, important yes…. gasoline powered yes.
At some point the composition of goods on the boat will change and there will be a renewed focus on speed ships. But so too will some jobs come back and be sourced inside the U.S.A.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Ocean shipping via diesel is ridiculously efficient. The most you might see happen is Hitachi teaming up with the South Korean shipyards to offer nuclear container ships.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
…Why? In a world where ocean shipping has a fuel economy on the order of 500 ton-miles per gallon, who needs that?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Better than that, 100,000 dwt bulk freighters were getting 1,000 ton-miles to the gallon 30 years ago. But competitive advantage is always a reason, especially if they also take advantage of nuclear’s power possibilities for faster shipping speeds. However, the original remark was in connection to a notional “Bunker oil costs go up tremendously” situation.
James in PA Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
I understand radiative loss scales with the surface area while the displacement of the diesel scales with the volume so as the engine gets larger it looses less heat and is more efficient. That is assuming the engine is designed for efficient combustion.
James in PA Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I understand radiative loss scales with the surface area while the displacement of the diesel scales with the volume so as the engine gets larger it looses less heat and is more efficient. That is assuming the engine is designed for efficient combustion.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 6:20 am
It’s not just the engines (although marine operators are obsessed with engine efficiency); a lot also is due to hull design and large overall size. A large, bulky, squarish hull carries the most volume, while a relatively slim hull is both faster and more efficient. Tankers tend to look like bricks with round ends, while racing yachts are pencil-thin and sharp at both ends. A tug boat is relatively wide for its length; it doesn’t need speed as much as a solid hull to hold an engine that is huge compared to the size of the boat, and which will be subject to the stresses of pushing and towing. Basically, it’s a floating switching locomotive.
Container ships and true ocean liners are compromises between the brick and the pencil, combining relatively sharp ends with a squarish middle and a good deal of length relative to width, giving them a fair amount of speed, good efficiency in terms of shape, and sufficient volume to carry a lot of boxes or people, both of which are more valuable per unit of volume and also more concerned with speed than bulk crude or coal.
A couple of links for those with interest in the big engines that power ships today.
http://gcaptain.com/ship-engines-hood-monster-engines
http://gcaptain.com/emma-maersk-engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 6:28 am
Some more on a most notable ship–check out her hull shape, compare it with what a tanker looks like:
http://www.fungur.com/worlds-largest-cargo-ship/
http://www.emma-maersk.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 6:43 am
A bit more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWIOnKrv4Mw&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL808F9B7211159631
Finally, a bit of fun–something about why you sometimes want to keep large diesels running:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOj6gPwkiXg
I wonder if Doug and his friend still have their jobs. . .
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
“Bulk and containerized shipping doesn’t make the 50 threats to the planet: on the contrary.”
The act of shipping doesn’t make the 50 threats, but the globalized economic structure we’ve formed that requires such shipping does.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
So … what sort of world do you imagine that does not support transoceanic shipment of goods but simultaneously does provide you with a 1:1-scale train set that pushes around air at 1 bar pressure at 350kmh?
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I’m glad to see you haven’t lost your sarcasm.
I’ve come to agree with you that it is a waste of energy to run HSR faster than 300 km/h. Does anyone other than France run trains faster than 300 km/h now?
My personal guess is that the operator of HSR in California will simply decide to run the trains at a maximum of 300 km/h. It’s no big deal.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Japan’s still planning to run the Hayabusa at 320 in 2013, last I heard.
joe Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
and Krugman refers to this
We’ll all telecommute. That’s cheap and is exactly what Google does. They all work from home with google docs.
Or maybe being co-located and having easy access to the Management, R&D and manufacturing is an advantage. Why Tesla in Fremont and SpaceX in Cali? It works.
Peter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Tesla and SpaceX aren’t exactly the best examples. The one builds essentially boutique luxury cars, and the other develops spacecraft.
I’m not sure when anyone is going to outsource the manufacturing of spacecraft.
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Perfect examples.
Tesla is based in CA and has a billion + to work with Toyota on building mass prodcued electic cars.
SpaceX is
1) commerical,
2) lowest cost providors per lb
3) competes with big gubberenmt globally..
4) Establised in CA.
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Let me know when Tesla builds an electric car for the masses, under $30k. Until then, they’re a boutique manufacturer, like Rolls-Royce was (before they were bought up).
As for SpaceX, remind me again how many launches they’ve had, and how many payloads they’ve brought up to orbit. Also, it helps that they had 50+ years of knowledge developed with OPM to develop their products.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
You’re being sarcastic, right? Because none of the ~5 people I know who work for Google telecommutes. The ride the subway to Google’s Manhattan building.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Every community on the planet should have its own indigenously developed 20nm semiconductor fab, as well as growing all of its own food.
joe Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
I didn’t think you give a shit about the bay area autoworkers rehired by Tesla, who took over the NUMMI facility near Tesla corporate HQ. It’s an example of manufacturing near the R&D and HQ in CA.
And yes we do buy local foods, season foods, have a garden. Nice time to plug ALBA.
The Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA) provides educational and business opportunities for farm workers and aspiring farmers to grow and sell crops grown on two organic farms in Monterey County, California.
http://www.albafarmers.org/index.html
Alon Levy Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Joe, there’s an enormous difference between plugging organic food as a healthier and more sustainable option (well, modulo lower yields…) and plugging locally-grown food on grounds of transportation costs. If you do an emissions calculation, it turns out that the difference between eating local and eating food transported from thousands of miles away is still an order of magnitude less than the difference between eating red meat and eating anything else. See details with link to relevant research here.
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Alon
Why get fooled by Richard’s silly Strawmen? I didn’t initiate any comment about growing food locally – he did to construct a silly strawman and change the topic. He’s Hippie punching.
As for food Organic crop yields being lower – some local growers find the cost of buying and applying pesticides exceeds the benefit of greater yield vs using natural techniuques. So the point of organic technqiues is to teach alternative ways to control pests or recuce the use of expensive – energey intensive techniques. Production can be calculated per unit area vs per unit dollar spent or per BTU.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
First, it’s not a strawman; a lot of people actually believe that locally grown food is more sustainable. Second, the point is that even grain, which is a very low-value product per mass, is cheap to ship across continents, let alone high-value products.
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I didn’t bring it up. Grow all food locally is nonsensical, a strawman unless you choose to agree with the argument as proposed. I can name one counter example and win.
As for shipping grain… I’m arguing about manufacturing, not ag.
Krugman sez:
“There have lately been quite a few stories about manufacturing moving back from China: the labor costs will always be much higher in America, but other advantages, especially logistical, can make even labor-intensive production worth doing at home.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/the-renminbi-and-us-manufacturing/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/re-shoring/
He mentions Logistical advantages. IMHO having the CV connected to the coasts with R&D and Business will foster manufacturing. It is a logistical advantage.
VBobier Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
There are areas where growing ones vegetables is just not possible Richard, you need good soil, clean water and most importantly a good climate, Here where I live We have good ground water, but lousy soil(Caliche, It can kill most plants without treatment as It’s like concrete when dry) and climate(it’s either too Hot or too Cold), so having a garden or farms is either not possible or difficult in the Desert. Mind You there are some farms out here, but I think they don’t exactly grow crops one can eat, unless yer a cow.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I didn’t know call centers still existed in the US. French call centers are in French-speaking African countries where salaries are low and workers’ rights unknown. British ones are mostly in India.
Apple has its products made by the lowest of the lowest-paid workers in China. Why would they keep call centers in California?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
so they can put in their ads that their call centers are in the US.
ericmarseille Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
I’ve just read an article about a french company, the first and still only one being a call center in French territory, with French employees, and the boss said that his business is soaring, because
1) of customer satisfaction (aaaah, to speak french with someone who doesn’t only pretend to speak french!)
2) his customers can proudly use a “call center in France with proper french-speaking and correctly paid French employees” label, of which customers are starting to be sensitive
I also know a trucking company which proudly displays as a motto : “our truckers respect the law”, which make them wayyyyy more costly than the competition, but hats off to them!
High speed rail is not a commuter train and will never really carry a significant percentage of commuters in the Bay Area. Most people are not willing to commute really long distances to and from work. Even during the housing boom, only a tiny minority of people actually decided to commute insane distances like from San Jose to Manteca. According to the 2000 census most people in Santa Clara (727915) worked locally while significant numbers commuted to Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties. Only a tiny minority commuted to San Joaquin County (7046), Stanislaus County (3822), Sacramento County (1486), etc. . Although these numbers probably grew a fair amount from 2000-2005, they are still very low. High speed rail will never be an attractive option for commuting because:
- Commuters must get to and from the train station at either end. Most jobs in Santa Clara County are not anywhere near the San Jose Diridon train station. Everyone knows that VTA is a joke and even with big improvements in bus service, it will take a long time to get from dispersed work locations to the main train station.
- High speed trains tend to run rather infrequently, so the schedules are very inconvenient for commuting
- High speed trains tend to be rather expensive
A typical commute from employers in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino etc. to cities in the Central Valley such as Merced, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno etc. would probably take at least 1.5 hours each way, which is crazy. Similarly, few people (maybe a few thousand people at most) commutes from Ciudad Real to Madrid – RENFE shows only 6 trains arriving in Madrid before 10am on weekdays.
synonymouse Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:28 am
On the other hand the argument has been put forth against the Tejon route that it would encourage commuting to Bakersfield and thus sprawl. Of course this is an inherently anti-hsr position – essentially one is calling for sandbagging the project – slowing it down – out of fear that it might be too successful. I mean it is not called “high speed” rail for nothing.
Perversely infrastructure projects that cause an increase in property values – and a concomitant upward pressure on wages – can have a negative impact on employment. State Farm did an in-state out-sourcing from Rohnert Park to Bakersfield ’cause Bako is cheaper. Make the latter more expensive and they will just re-locate to South Dakota, etc., etc.
Coastal California has always had the money and the employment and has always fared much better in economic downturns than the San Joaquin Valley. Sac is the exception because it has become the cheaper Bay Area annex and has the guvmint jobs. Trying to juice the Valley with excessive population growth is just asking for boom and bust misery.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Cities 120 miles (and more) from Paris are part of the TGV commuter belt. A monthly commuter pass may cost up to €570 (tax deductible, but so are car kilometers). These commuters are not the type you meet in suburban trains. They mostly have above-average incomes. Some of them are workers from provincial cities attracted by better jobs in Paris, the others (in growing numbers) are Parisians who, for the same cost, had rather live in a four-bedroom house in Tours than in a small apartment in Paris.
A recent poll showed very few of them complain about the time they have to spend in the train. It’s easy to understand why. The time spent driving is time wasted. On the TGV, they can do work they would otherwise have to do at home or at the office. Some even said they do better work on the train because no one disturbs them.
There are also the executives, but can they be called commuters? They travel first class and a company chauffeur meets them on the platform.
Many people think long-distance commuting has revived cities which would otherwise have become backwaters, but not everybody agrees. Others say the influx of Parisians has inflated real estate prices, putting decent housing out of reach for the locals. They also speak of a brain drain but yhat is difficult to measure.
Anyway, long-distance commuting is mainly due to France being Paris-centric. This situation is probably not reproductible in California.
ericmarseille Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
There was Tours, then Reims.
I think that’s what’s behind our eggheads’ grand designs of doubling the northern LGV : gaining 15 min. on London-Paris, yeah, ok, but at the same time putting Amiens in the TGV commuting belt ; and then there will be Orléans and Rouen, circa 2030, which will complete the job : North, East, South, Southwest, Northwest.
joe Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Andrew most bay area residents and prospective residents recognize working here means a long commute.
The CA HSR site has a timetable and Fresno is under an hour from Palo Alto. You can use a wireless to do email/read instead of drive. So you have some basic facts wrong.
The Pacheco alignment was selected to reduce wait times for trains.
An Economic/geographic study in Germany statistically demonstrated the benefits of HSR to access to jobs i.e. commuting.
What’s the physical constraint stopping San Jose from changing as we bring HSR into the City? Even the Gilroy city council knows the HSR stop will alter landuse, density and change the downtown area.
Sunnyvale has done some massive changes to their old down town area/Caltrain – Multi-story Nokia offices replaced single story strip mall shops.
Andrew Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I think that a lot of Bay Area residents realize that houses are too expensive and live in apartments/townhouses instead. Hence the fact that the average commute time in the Silicon Valley area isn’t all that long. Also housing costs in the Bay Area, though high, aren’t remotely as expensive as cities like Paris. One can buy a house for about $500K in the eastern part of San Jose or Milpedas, Fremont, Hayward etc. about a 30 minute commute by car from many major Valley employers, try that in Paris.
Sorry I forgot that there was going to be a second high speed rail station in Palo Alto but I think that my point still stands that many employers e.g. Apple are far from any of the CAHSR or Caltrain stations and that people would have to take a fairly long bus ride to the stations, and that the quality of existing VTA bus service isn’t very good (and lower paying jobs in the Bay Area are unlikely to provide private shuttle buses). Plus most HSR systems have pretty low frequencies even during peak hours so train schedules are very inconvenient, and fares are high. Therefore my predicted commute time of 1.5 hours each way to Fresno including time spent on the bus going to and from the stations and time spent waiting for trains. Even CAHSR’s own site shows projected ridership of 5000 at Palo Alto and 7600 at San Jose, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Valley employment.
Even in Paris (with extremely high housing costs) commuting on the high speed rail system is a drop in the bucket. Looking at TGV schedules, most cities within 1 hour of Paris have about half a dozen trains arriving in morning rush hour on weekdays, so it is pretty clear that the TGV doesn’t carry more than a negligible percentage of commuters to Paris.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:10 am
Andrew, you haven’t been paying attention to the eternal Altamont versus Pacheco discussion. There’s going to be stampeding herds of commuters who take a bus to the station in Livermore or Tracy or wherever. After they arrive in San Jose or Redwood City or wherever take another bus to the office park far far away from the train station. Why wouldn’t Fresno be as attractive?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Has Adirondacker ever looked at a map? Transbay terminal is right next door to a major financial district and jobs center, no bus connection required.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
It’s a reallly really long walk to the offices in Silicon Valley from Transbay. Which is where the Altamont proponents claim all the commuters are going to be going.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
You’re making shit up again.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Stop by the calibration shop this week and have your sarcasm detector adjusted.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Remind me again where Milpitas is, will you?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
It’s along the line they would have to build for the HSR train in all the schedules you’ve put up on Clems’s blog unless the trains going north from San Jose fall into a worm hole in Santa Clara and reappear int Fremont.
joe Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Andrew;
A HSR station at MtV or Palo Alto would be serviced by dedicated shuttle buses to employment at the new Facebook campus or to MtView. They pick-up for Caltrain. HSR would be no different.
Fresno is one hour on the HSR according to the site. It’s faster than south Santa Clara county Caltrain and competitive with Caltrain SF to Palo Alto 45-55+ minutes.
Wherever HSR ends up on the Peninsula, it will have a major impact on jobs and development and home values.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
The only reason those office-park shuttles exist at all is because of batshit insane subsidies from the Air District. And even then, the ridership numbers are microscopic (i.e. hardly enough to change development values).
Now, that isn’t to say a HSR line doesn’t have commuter potential. It does! But the potential ridership isn’t to places like Diridon Station. Palo Alto maybe. San Francisco definitely.
Andrew Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 12:49 am
The trouble with short distance high speed rail services in other countries though is (a) high fares (b) infrequent service and (c) only a small minority of people will tolerate a 1.5 hour commute one way, once you count the time spent on the employer shuttle buses and time spent waiting for trains. Even the Southeastern domestic high speed commuter train in London, which is probably one of the more successful high speed commuter services in the world, is expensive to ride and the off peak train frequency is not all that high. A market for commuting from Palo Alto to Fresno probably exists, but it is not all that large.
If high speed rail leads to improvements to Caltrain that will be a big benefit to commuters, but most of the traffic on high speed rail will not be commuters, since most commuter traffic to and from the Valley is just traffic within the Valley or to East Bay cities like Fremont and Hayward.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 4:45 am
No love for the Kodama? I don’t have ridership numbers, but the trains run on a 2 tph clockface schedule, with a few extra off-takt peak trains. A monthly pass just from Odawara to Tokyo is $705.70, but JR Central still manages to fill 16-car trains.
swing hanger Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 6:14 am
JR Central runs Kodama services bound for Tokyo on ten minute headways between 6am and 8:30am, and an additional six Hikari and Nozomi trains also stop at Odawara during this time frame. A blog report on a Monday trip from Odawara described a full train with some standees, keeping in mind Monday is usually the busiest commuting day, as most companies hold their morning meetings on that day. That said, ridership levels are lower than during the bubble era, and Odawara Station also offers slower but more affordable commuter services for Tokyo and Yokohama on the regular JR East Tokaido Line as well as the Odakyu Railway.
Caelestor Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:53 am
The commute market may not be big, but surely there are people in SF and SJ who want a faster ride to Sacramento?
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:27 am
There are actually a lot of people worldwide who commute via high speed rail. Just because the train isn’t a “commuter” train doesn’t mean that people won’t commute on it. Even the ICE, that does charge a surcharge, has regular commuters using it.
NARP commentary on trains–specifically, “myth-busting:”
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/passenger_rail_myths_facts/
Alon Levy Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Good myth-busting.
Do you know where I can email them to say they have a typo in the first fact – the density figures they claim for California and Spain per mi^2 are in fact their densities per km^2?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Here’s their general web page:
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php
And here is their main contact page:
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main/contact
Here is the officers’ list:
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/officers/
Hope this helps–and be sure an put in a plug for yourself, maybe they would like to see some of what you have (at least, let’s hope they have the attitude of taking allies whenever they can).
Alon Levy Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Alright, sent them an email with an abbreviated-by-my-standards account of the HSR-requires-subsidies myth. No plug for myself, though.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:32 am
The ratio, nearly 1:1, would still be the same. The point, which is that they are nearly as dense as each other, is still made. On the other hand it’s best to have all the jots and tittles correct.
It’s too bad they didn’t point out that trains can use carbon free sources of electricity. The US gets 30% of it’s electricity from nuclear and hydro.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Oh, of course the ratio is the same. That’s why it’s a typo and not a mistake in the argument.
And yeah, it’s too bad they softballed the carbon angle. In fact every heavy urban rail line in the US emits less CO2 per passenger-km than the average single-occupant car (link), and the average, dominated by low-emission NYCT, is one quarter the amount emitted by the car. The secrets: less rolling friction and air resistance, and the possibility of drawing electricity from low-emission hydro power.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
If I remember correctly New York gets 50 percent of it’s electricity from hydro and nuclear. Cuts the carbon emissions of a subway ride. Also if I remember correctly New York has a lot of unconventional sources like wind, cogeneration, biomass etc. Can’t find the DOE charts at the moment.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Yep. Ditto California; BART has even lower per-capita emissions than NYCT.
Peter Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:54 am
At the top of that page is a paragraph on how to contact them about the Myths and Facts:
When are they going to pull the plug on this boondoggle? This absurd socialist taxpayer-subsidized acorn-implicated Pelosi’s pet train to nowhere? Boondoggle, i tell you! Boondoggle Boondoggle Boondoggle Boondoggle! Boondoggle! BOONDOGGLE TO NOWHERE! NOWHERE!
Thanks. I feel better now. Just had to get that out of my system. I read some of the reader’s comments attached to some newspaper columns — the stock anti-HSR phrases are like lice, like leaches that swim around, taking over amidst the inarticulate rightwing-duped fools. At least here opponents of HSR appreciate the art of marshalling facts, constructing an argument.
VBobier Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
If Yer rich You could start a signature drive to put It on the ballot, short of that, Never. Don’t like that? Too bad, So sad, not.
Here’s a column about potential economic development/job creation if we build freeways instead of HSR. Probably ties nicely to this blog post.
Be sure to keep reading past the opening until at least 8 or 9 paragraphs into the column.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/10/07/2568613/eli-setencich-who-needs-high-speed.html
Peter Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 11:44 am
The part where he argues for more freeways because we’ll get more accidents, which will lead to more jobs for tow truck drivers blows my mind.
Why not mention the paramedics, ambulance drivers, air rescue pilots and nurses, trauma surgeons, critical care nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists that will be employed if we have more road accidents. Or why not mention the deaths that will occur, either taking someone off unemployment, or will allow someone to fill the dead guy’s job. Wouldn’t that also help employment?
datacruncher Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
He does mention ambulance drivers, medics, morticians and grave diggers in the paragraph after tow truck drivers and CHP officers.
He also says that freeway building would reduce the number of illegal farmworkers too. And don’t forget all that growth in TSA and baggage handling jobs at airports he mentions.
He has something for everyone. I almost bit my tongue when it was in my cheek while reading it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Not only do dead people stop collecting unemployment they never collect Social Security benefits or use Medicare, a three-fer.
Jay Taylor Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
not a new argument, but still wrong.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Just tweeted it, it’s really funny.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I like it too, a great piece of satire.
Just in case anyone is interested in a poorly written (obviously not edited, even by its author) blog piece by George McQuade, I give you California’s High Speed Rail Project Heads for Derailment.
My favorite part is Rep. David Nunes now claiming that the system will cost $145 billion. It’s like project opponents are trying to one-up each other in terms of ridiculous “estimates”.
Also good is that supposedly Pringle stated that HSR will reduce carbon monoxide pollution. I sincerely doubt Pringle said that.
Lesson to be learned from this article: proofread.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Author’s background page:
http://technorati.com/people/gmcquade/
Weblog page:
http://www.mayocommunications.com/
Quote from the author’s background page:
“George S. McQuade III is a national award-winning business, high tech, entertainment and social media writer based in Los Angeles. He has earned “Best Breaking News”, Associated Press Managing Editors Assn, “Best News writing”, Radio TV News Assn., “Best News writing”, “ APTV,” “Best Media Placement-Print” and “Best Education Campaigns” from the PRSA. He’s past president and currently a board member of the Entertainment Publicists Professional Society (EPPS)LA/NY chapters. McQuade founded MAYO Communications (MAYOPR.com) Follow George on Twitter.com/gmcquade on Google+ at: https://plus.google.com/114300093198490234271/posts?hl=en On Facebook.com/MAYOCommunications or Facebook.com/MAYOPublicRelations Email: George@mayocommunications.com
Read more: http://technorati.com/people/gmcquade/#ixzz1aFNfVf8f”
National award winning writer? How, based on what we see here, including the carbon monoxide comment?
Then there is the photo of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield). I probably shouldn’t say this, it may be just when the photographer snapped the picture, but darn if he doesn’t have that goofy look that showed up so often in photos of George W. Bush!
I’ve said this before, my wife thinks we have a national epidemic of a low-level mental illness (in other words, general stupidity), and she wonders if it could be from all the chemicals we have been using in food and water over the years.
Maybe those “crazy” anti-fluoride people are onto something. . .
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Tobacco combustion produces CO. People can smoke while driving, but trains are no-smoking.
Therefore, riding trains reduces carbon monoxide pollution…
Alon Levy Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Pretty sure that car tailpipes produce far more CO than cigarettes. The main things in cigarettes that kill you and the people around you are the tar and the nicotine.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Of course I was joking. Still, CO being the product of incomplete combustion, an ideal engine would only emit CO2.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
This little play reminds me that China supposedly banned smoking on trains some years ago–before the complete abolition of coal-burning steam locomotives.
For a while, the only smoking allowed on trains was by the locomotive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ab7Mwt4pwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aV6jQN4PT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxFNdhMjHvc
Alon Levy Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Supposedly. When I rode the crummier train from Shanghai to Jiaxing, people were smoking in the vestibules.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Wonderful machines, even if they needed too many people with jobs to keep them running.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4vpOs-pkEw&feature=related
I can’t say I’m in favor of air pollution, but this relatively small freight locomotive on a coal train is very close to a Virginian Railway MB class that was a beloved little horse on that road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDACJs3FnjA&feature=related
Bet Richard and Syn are upset at the Chinese building big bridges:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=X98gQaw4yx8
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:24 am
We have to recognize, nostalgic as we may be, that steam locos were not environment-friendly. Unfortunately, the diesel electrics that replaced them had the beauty of oversized shoe boxes and the romance was gone.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Fortunately, we have streamlined electrics that look quite aesthetic.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Could this be the new line in California if it weren’t electrified, with high, stilty bridges of concrete and long tunnels?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r2co-dGc9w&feature=related
Alon Levy Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 4:49 am
A slow mountain climb? Isn’t that the kind of line HSR is supposed to be an express bypass for?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 6:19 am
More of a joke aimed at Morris, Syn, and Richard and their Stilt-O-Rail and base tunnel line.
Joey Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 7:15 am
You know, I don’t think I’ve seen Richard pick a side on the Tehachapi vs Grapevine debate (likely because there’s not much conclusive evidence to do so on). I haven’t heard Morris chime in on that particular issue either, but he’s more opposed to anything involving HSR in general. It’s main boosters at this point are synonymouse and Clem – you seem to be confusing a few people with vastly different opinions.
Peter Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 7:30 am
Richard has tenuously supported Tehachapi based on its technical merits, IIRC. He is more focused on the Bay Area, of course.
Caelestor Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 8:28 am
RM’s philosophy is to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. have CAHSR function as a commuter system. Hence his support for Altamont and Palmdale. The latter is one of the few areas I’ve seen in which he and Clem have different opinions on.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Thanks, Peter.
I don’t “support” Palmdale. (For that matter I don’t “support” rail, high speed or otherwise.) I support cost effective public investments, evidence based science and engineering, and the good public policy engineering mantra “don’t borrow trouble”.
If evidence changes, my evaluation changes.
If I can’t evaluate the facts, I don’t express an opinion.
Pretty simple.
If Clem and I mostly (but hardly uniformly) agree on issues, I suggest that’s because most everything under “dispute” is extraordinarily cut and dried to anybody with moderate intelligence and a moderate command of evidence-based technical/economic reasoning. It’s not rocket science you know.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 6:21 am
And, of course, operated with steam engines (Yay!)
Alon Levy Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
To be fair, HSR really is going to reduce CO pollution from cars.
Peter Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:30 am
Yes, but I doubt that was Pringle’s statement. Given the numerous other errors that would have been avoided simply by reading it over again after he wrote the article, instead of just posting it.