The California High Speed Rail Authority voted to make San Jose one of the stops on the proposed High Speed Train Line. This November, the citizens of California will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to approve the initial round of funding for the project. Bonds worth $9.9 billion will be needed to get the project going, with an additional $30 billion required in the future.
If the “Bullet Train” gets built, travelers will be able to “fly” from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than three hours.
Governor Schwarzenegger is supporting the project despite the state’s budget woes. “A network of high speed rail lines connecting cities throughout California would be a tremendous benefit to our state.”
It’s kind of funny that money can’t be found to extend BART to San Jose, but a project that is exponentially more expensive gets serious consideration, the support of the governor, and a place on the upcoming ballot.
$40 billion is a lot of money. Could one make the argument that it could be better spent and create more value for the state if the money was used to build BART completely around the bay, and invest in a similar type of project somewhere in Southern California? Perhaps twice the value could be built for half the costs, and the resulting savings could be invested in alternative energy programs that would benefit all of California.
Is zipping down to L.A. on a train in less than three hours a luxury or a necessity?
With the debut of the iphone 3G, I seriously doubt anyone will need to travel for business or pleasure, anymore. Utilizing technology to enhance productivity and preserve the environment will allow mankind to reverse the negative effects of pollution and overpopulation.
You are on to something. People who use rail are usually traveling regionally. Planes are easier, cheaper and faster for statewide traveling.
Having Sacramento area, the bay area, LA and san diego all have real regional options for travel would help all four areas build stronger work forces and communities.
I’m going to have to vote against this in November. Please see the following article:
http://venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-high-speed-rail-plan-is-fundamentally-flawed/
Some arguments carry more weight than others.
A strong argument is cost. Right now the official estimate is $40 BILLION. But of course we all know that all large infrastructure projects like the Big Dig, the new Bay Bridge, MIA’s North Terminal, will always go over budget. It’s part of the plan because, once the project is started government says “in for a penny, in for a pound” and we pay for the overruns.
Note that the author is from Menlo Park, a city full of NIMBYs. Normally I’d take such article with a grain of salt, but Martin Engel makes some good points.
Another problem is the route on both ends. Rather than go directly from LA to Bakersfield over the I-5/Grapevine route, for political reasons the planners routed the thing via the Antelope Vally to serve Palmdale and Lancaster. On the north end, they opted for Pacheco instead of Altamont. Why is that flawed? See this map:
http://trainblog.com/2007/10/follow-the-people-follow-the-lights/
Going via Pacheco [the blue line] means that a future Sacramento extension will cost much more. [see cost overrun discussion above]
Finally, anybody who buys those promises of $55 SF-LA tickets hasn’t checked rail fares on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor between Boston, NY and DC. Those fares are in the triple digits. No reason not to believe the CAHSR fares won’t be at the same level or higher, unless you subsidize it big time.
I can’t support CA HSR as presented in this plan.
I think it is high time there be efficient train transport between LA and the Bay Area. It is especially important given that both auto and airplane travel are expensive and contribute to global warming.
As for whether this be in favor of or in lieu of BART to San Jose, there is no reason we should not do both.
I really would like to see this happen.
#2 NB,
“Planes are easier, cheaper and faster for statewide travelling.” HUHH!??? Have you been under a rock for the past year? The airlines are in a crisis and gas prices are going through the roof! I guess if you like spending hours in airport terminals, paying for your luggage, and paying more for a flight, don’t vote for Prop. 1B. Also, not voting for this proposition will cost California nearly $80 billion over the long haul (more runways, expanded airport terminals, new/expanded highways). $80 billion vs. $40 billion…you do the math. Oh, and did I mention gas prices going through the roof! Go over to http://cahsr.blogspot.com/ for the truth. Vote yes on Prop. 1!
It’s not an either/or choice. HSR isn’t just a fast train to LA, it’s a 20 minute trip from SF to SJ. A half hour from Anaheim to LA. So in that sense it’s worth a couple mass transit lines.
As to traveling between cities, the airlines are in crisis. They are cutting flights between the Bay Area and SoCal and fares are soaring, Southwest has only maintained low fares due to fuel hedges that expire in 2010. After that, as their CEO Herb Kelleher said, air travel will be the province of the rich.
Californians won’t be able to move around the state without it. And last time I checked an iPhone 3G can’t be used on a place – but it can be used on a train.
#11
Jet fuel has just risen to $11 dollars a gallon.
Jet fuel is going for $7.59/gallon at San Jose airport, and for $5.82/gallon at Hollister.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html
If in 2010 jet fuel is pricey enough that air travel will only be “the province of the rich,” then gasoline prices will have the same affect on automobile travel. We all better move downtown, so we can use mass transit, BART and bullet trains!
The HSR bond will provide shared infrastructure for long distance BA-LA service and regional service. HSR will provide the fastest travel time from San Jose to San Francisco and Oakland. Spending the same money on BART will never provide this type of speed.
It is not the issue of one HSR vs. 10 BART, but one HSR + a number of very fast Caltrain vs. a few slow BART.
More bonding, more debt. More sales tax, less income—especially for poor people.
Here’s an idea—why don’t we put an endowment together for transportation projects.
In fact, we can utilize the extra proceeds of the soaring government revenues generated from the taxes on gasoline.
Here’s the idea. Instead of spending the gas tax money currently collected for ongoing transportation projects—let’s invest the money, utilizing only a percentage of the ongoing revenue for those projects.
As the fund grows, so will the investment income and we will be able to pay as we go for transportation projects—instead of bonding (debt) or asking for increases in taxes.
Now where has this worked? Calpers for one, the best funded government retirement program in the world. It worked for Harvard and Stanford. Harvard has over $30 billion in their endowment fund. Stanford is giving away tuition for most students of modest means—as a result of their endowment.
Moreover, the economy—which is in the tank—would benefit from the investment side. And ultimately we could reduce taxes on everyone as the fund grew.
Is there risk? Some, but it is manageable risk as any investor will tell you. In addition which is riskier, bonding? Relying on taxes based on a growing economy? or perhaps relying on bank interest of 2-5% when the dollar is falling by 40% over the last eight years?
Besides what does the bank do with to safe deposits, that’s right—they invest the capital to make money.
Let’s stop borrowing, let us raise taxes only when abosultely necessary (and then only on people/entities whose lifestyle will not change if they are taxed*) and let government begin to actively invest in the future.
*For those who believe I want to “soak” the rich of the “hard earned” money. A reasonable plan would be to initially fund gvoernment so they could invest, pay down the national/state/local government debts, and pay for necessary operations.
As investments grow, taxes would be lowered commesurately.
Just an idea.
May I respectfully ask the question I always ask when it comes to these taxpayer-funded transportation ideas: Can somebody give me some quantifiable analysis why $39B is too expensive, or a bargain, for the economic value we get over time from the high speed rail system. Same for BART. All these numbers fly around, but as a taxpayer, I have no way of judging if these projects pass the cost/benefit analysis test. It’s always: It’s a Good Idea, or It’s a Bad Idea, and nobody has a metric to tell me if it’s worth the expense. Help me understand, please!
As someone who’s taken the closest thing this country has to high-speed rail (the Metroliner from NY to Washington, DC and back) I would normally support the proposed California high-speed rail line.
However, as construction of the line will be paid for by bonds, it will automatically get my NO vote. Since coming here from New Jersey, I have learned that bonds give government permission to borrow tax revenue it has not collected from you yet. The resulting interest on those bonds – and the bank fees that must be paid for the bonds – are rarely if ever disclosed. Isn’t it true that nearly half of the $15 billion-$20 billion total debt California faces is due to interest and fees on bonds voters approved over the last 5 years?
The proposed routing on both ends of the line, as Hugh mentioned, only aids in my NO vote on the HSR bond.
Even something like pay-as-you-go and better planning would have gotten the HSR proposal my support.
Also, I remember Greg Perry mentioning here that Quentin Copp, head of the California HSR committee, was behind the failed BART extension to San Francisco Airport. It’s such a failure (only now getting over half of its original projected ridership) that BART passengers from Caltrain in Millbrae must now transfer at San Bruno for an airport-bound train. It was better off if Caltrain were rerouted to just across Hwy. 101 from the airport, or if the airport’s people mover were extended to the new Millbrae station. Even keeping the free direct shuttle bus to the airport would have been a better, cheaper alternative to what’s turning out to be a $1.5 billion waste of Peninsula tax money.
As for BART here in the Valley: VTA General Manager Burns and the VTA Board have planned on not extending light rail to Eastridge and delaying construction of the tunnel in to San Jose…
http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_9064297
Recall that the light rail extension to Eastridge was part of the Measure A package back in 2000. This only validates the rushed planning opponents mentioned in 2000 was wrong with Measure A then.
Finally, Pete previously mentioned how VTA can be in the land owning business. This is part of the original merger between the county’s transit agency and “congestion management” (bureaucratic code phrase meaning road and highway construction) voters approved back in 1993. More on that issue this evening.
That same measure also promised voters would be able to elect 5 members of the VTA Board – one for each supervisor’s district. Such elections, from my research, never happened, and clearly need to happen.
All this – BART, other transit projects, sunshine, and reform – will be decided on at the August 7 VTA Board meeting. It’s at 5:30pm at 70 W. Hedding Street in San Jose. Those that are concerned with any or all of the above, need to make the time and the voice to be there.
—eugene
p.s. There is a recording of last month’s VTA Board meeting at
http://scvtaru.podbean.com/
where a bus stop for DeAnza college was approved by the VTA Board, and more. Give it a listen…
Mr. Zappelli:
I agree with most of your concerns. I’m on record as a non-fan of BART. My point is, I would rather spend $40 billion on several, regional BART-like systems, than a high-speed line.
Pete
Rose Garden Dad wanted some numbers, so here’s some:
From Michael Setty’s article:
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155
He quotes the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the BART project:
“Ridership expectations for the San Jose BART extension suffer from same shortcomings as the less than successful SFO extension that opened in 2003. First, the VTA planners are projecting 39,000 daily boardings and alightings (e.g. station entries and exits, respectively) at the proposed BART terminous n Santa Clara, where connections to Caltrain and an automated shuttle to San Jose International Airport would be provided. But actual patronage at the BART Millbrae station–with a similar connection to Caltrain–fell short of projections by 70%-80%.”
“Other station volume projections are believable IF one takes them to be total boardings AND alightings, not just boardings. Currently, the two downtown Oakland BART stations see around 42,000-43,000 daily boardings and alightings with about 50,000 jobs within 1/2 mile AND being at the geographic center of the Bay Area, traversed by no less than BART routes from FOUR directions, PLUS extensive interchange traffic with buses. In contrast, downtown San Jose in total has perhaps 35,000 jobs plus the presence of 30,000 San Jose State University students. It’s plausible that downtown San Jose might grow to 50,000 jobs by 2030. But I cannot believe that a BART station at that location would generate 46,000 daily entry and exits, the same volume generated by the much more intense development around the Powell Street BART station in downtown San Francisco.”
In addition to the $6+ Billion capital cost, there’s a recurring operating cost. The Gilroy Dispatch quoted ex-BART director Roy Nakadegawa, who wrote “Another looming problem is VTA’s annual $48 million maintenance/operation BART contract, which VTA has budgeted only few a years after completion. After a few years where is $48 million coming from? Total operational cost is $63 million leaving a $15 million annual deficit. VTA also requires 76 percent fare recovery to garner $48 million from fares, a percentage BART never attained.” See:
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/241890-time-to-face-reality-bart-to-san-jose-is-a-no-go
Every big capital construction project in recent times has gone over budget big time. The poster child for this is Boston’s Big Dig, but remember the overpriced BART extension to Millbrae/SFO.
Here’s a British analysis of cost overruns:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6210708.stm
Also see this report:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0309-17.pdf
As for the HSR bond, Eugene said it all, the last thing this state needs is more debt. A better way to go, as he points out, would be a lower cost, “pay-as-you-go” scheme. A good start would be to upgrade existing rail lines carrying passenger and freight trains and spend some money closing some obvious gaps in the rail system like Bakersfield-LA.
Improving the rail system is not a bad idea, but this expensive plan relies on too much debt and is not well thought out.
One option that hasn’t been discussed here is a change in mindset regarding traveling between LA and SF.
Sure, airfares have increased greatly. But HSR at a cost of $40 billion and financed via bonds is unacceptable.
How about this instead? We simply cut back on travel – after all, the millions spent on teleconferencing equipment by Government and private enterprise ought to provide some benefit.
I suspect that much of the travel by bureaucrats and business people is completely unnecessary and is, instead, simply a way to get out of the office on a boondoggle.
Pete,
You must be kidding! BART, money can`t be found…Money was found,“Measure A the 1/2 cent sales tax which was added to the previous 1/2 cent sales tax money for VTA to build rapid transit in the County, electrify Cal Train and purchase “Carbon free Busses”.The money is gone! VTA ate it up on operations and spending $2 million dollars a week on consultants to reasearch BART. $2 million a week is over $100 million a year just for consultants.
Pete there are much more pressing transportation problems to be solved in Santa Clara County than BART. BART is an outdated system.
“San Jose is densifying”, for good reasons. San Jose already has gridlock on all freeways in our county during commute hours. Densification is going to make things worse and BART is NOT going to solve our problems. We badly need a comprehensive public transportation system for our City and County.
Jet fuel has just risen to $11 dollars a gallon.I`ve been told it will be going higher next year.The cost to fly to LA is expensive now and will go up. We need an alternate form of transportation to travel up and down the state. The Bullet train is long overdue.
Trains are now being electrified,new solar powered trains are being built.All Europe and Japan have high speed trains.We are way behind the times.The problems of the future are here now.
#2: Planes are easier and faster? Have you ever flown? Apparently not. Airports are something people actively avoid.
#3: The Pacheco route keeps HSR less bogged down by commuters. It is not meant to aid cheap, sprawling assholes in Stockton and Modesto. Also, comparing it to Amtrak is stupid. They, like the airlines, are affected by fuel costs. HSR is electric.
Rose Garden Dad:
You ask: “Is there a consensus cost/usage/time period metric within the transporation -community that is considered a signifier of a successful mass transit system, and conversely a failed one.”
One such statistic is “farebox recovery” which is the percentage of operating expenses is recovered from passenger fares. Railway Age took a look at this here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_7_205/ai_n6150069
Not surprisingly, the NYC subway was the best performer in this regard, followed by Washington, two systems in Philly and BART. VTA, according to a 2006 article from the Morgan Hill Times, “Despite steep rate hikes over the last decade (fares, according to the VTA Riders Union, have increased by 59 to 358 percent in that time frame) and chronic service cuts, the VTA only manages to cover 12 percent of its operating expenses through fares, a ratio known as fare box recovery. VTA’s fare box recovery rate is one of the lowest in the industry nationwide.” See
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:Cm03BsDoCk8J:www.morganhilltimes.com/opinion/195158-vta-audit-same-old-…+farebox+recovery+vta&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
This article predates the recent VTA route reorganization; the current number may be higher.
Wikipedia reports that “The California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to use the projected operating profit from the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles line to finance further extensions to Sacramento and San Diego.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High_Speed_Rail
Sorry to quote Wikipedia, but I don’t have time to fish out the primary source.
Looking at the proposed HSR system, what will the fares be?
This article says “The estimated price for high-speed rail tickets from Los Angeles to San Francisco is expected to be around $55.”
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2008/03/28/News/Calpirg.Promotes.HighSpeed.Rail-3289520.shtml
How realistic is that? How can you make an operating profit on $55 tickets in 2020 dollars to pay for the extensions? Someone needs to ask this question.
The SF-LA distance is approximately 382 miles, compared to 441 miles from DC to Boston. Checking for this Friday, Amtrak’s fares range from $124 to $217 in current dollars. On Saturday, a day with fewer business travelers about, fares range from $87 to $169.
Now think back to CAHSR. It won’t be up and running for years. Does anybody think that they’ll charge $55 and make an operating profit? I don’t.
High-speed rail might be a good concept. It might help get cars off of the road. But the current plan is flawed, and it asks us to believe it can make an operating profit with ridiculously low fares. On top of this, the bonds will just add to the pile of debt that California needs to pay off. And the $40 Billion price tag will escalate to $60 or $80 like the Big Dig did.
I can’t vote for this.
Eugene,
Is this what you are referring to?
“Five (5) members representing the City of San Jose, appointed by the San Jose City Council;”
Thanks, Hugh for the ridership projection figures and the cost projections. I just need somebody to take me the final yard here: Is there a consensus cost/usage/time period metric within the transporation -community that is considered a signifier of a successful mass transit system, and conversely a failed one. Hypothetically speaking (and apologies if this is a goofball number: is a cost of $10/ride over a ten year period, 25% of which is recovered in farebox receipts, a good success metric or is it something else? Until we have an agreed upon success metric it’s just hard to judge the cost effectiveness of any of these programs. A nd of course we should factor into that likely cost and projection overruns, but at least we’re all working from an agreed-upon metric of success.
Here is the long-forgotten 1993 ballot measure authorized by voters that created the VTA we all know today:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/ffa/1993MeasureB.html
The ballot text contains probably the greatest ironic statement in local political history. Find out what it is for yourself…
Oh great. The BART tax is back:
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_9906067
I thought we put a stake through its heart 2 years ago, but like a bad movie zombie it keeps rising from the dead.
HJ #23,
Just stop already! It’s only going to be a 1/8 cent sales tax hike that won’t be collected until money comes in from SAC/Wash.DC. I’m pretty sure not one valley resident will go into poverty over this “increase,” if that’s what we want to call it. BRING BART TO SJ!!
Yes, Let’s put a stake through tax wasting BART to San Jose Zoombie by voting NO
1/8 cent sales tax $42 million will not cover VTA’s BART yearly $50 million fee and t
1) VTA percentage of BART system deficit operating costs
2) VTA’s BART operating costs,
3 Shortfall of inflated BART passenger estimates
Probably another $80-120 million / year so BART Sales Tax Zommbie ( Carl Gardino ) will be back for more 1/2 – 1% sales tax increases
Why is Silicon Valley Leadership Group – which is well known for not giving back to the communities that made them millionaires / bilionaires – asking taxpayers to pay for BART rather than Silicon Valley companies helping pay for BART
Could it be that BART is really ” Let have Santa Clara County taxpayers pay to move Silicon Valley Jobs and employees to cheaper inland East Bay” as recent studies have shown that Bay Area loses most jobs to inland California not other states or foreign countries
KLIV.com Poll – BART Tax poll
Yes -35%
No 54%
Don’t Know – 12%
Renaming, repackaging, repromising, and oh yes, repricing.
Has anyone seen the latest cost to construct BART to San Jose? Last I heard VTA would not have enough information to give a good figure until sometime in the future. In fact, VTA will not have 65% of the engineering soft work complete until after the November election so they will not be able to reassess the costs until next year. And that would be with only 65% of the detail needed.
Those funds expected from the State and Fed; are those funds in the bank and already in escrow? Or is this one of those “if this, then maybe that” deals?
Would you hire a contractor on such terms?
Do you trust Silicon Valley Leadership Group and VTA Board to be honest with public about real cost of BART?
We were promised Measure A – 1/2 cent sales tax comprehensive county wide transportation and can you get quickly to airport, shopping or you job on VTA – No
Too many questions, too few answers, answers we have are bad or unbelievable and no one is accountable for results or spending our taxes carefully
VOTE NO on BART
There is a strong linkage to commuter rail options in San Fran. The first part of HSR..San Fran-San Jose, would share infrastructure with the electrification of Caltrain. San Fran and San Mateo have already raised funding for this.
I see no reason why the first part of this HSR line cannot be built very fast, since this portion now has funds from state of California, San Fran, and San Mateo. The whole thing doesnt have to be built at once, build it in phases.