Alternative Travel for the Wealthy
California’s high-speed rail initiative has been hailed by urbanists around the country, but it might be more worthwhile to increase public transit in cities instead.By Ben Adler
November 19, 2008
Seated in front of large railroad locomotive, Gov. Gray Davis signed a $9.5 billion bond measure that would clear the way for a high-speed rail system in 2002. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)Conventional wisdom holds that as California goes, so goes the nation, in ten or twenty years. The suburbs exploded first in California, and today the average American drives 29 miles in a day—a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. But California, once a leader in suburban growth, now seeks to become a leader in alternative transportation.
On Election Day, California passed Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion state bond for a high speed rail line linking northern and southern California. The proposed rail line would allow passengers to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours, far faster than the current option on Amtrak. It would also link cities that are closer to each other, such as Sacramento to San Francisco and San Diego to L.A. Supporters hope that it would attract people who currently fly or drive those distances, and thereby reduce traffic and pollution. Many progressives and smart growth advocates have said that California struck a blow for progressive infrastructure construction.
But I’m not sure I entirely agree. While making the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco by high-speed rail instead of by flying would save some CO2 emissions, the bigger problem is not that you can’t get from L.A. to San Francisco fast enough by train, it’s that you can’t get around L.A. or San Diego, the nation’s second and eighth largest cities, respectively, without a car.
The rail project will cost substantially more than the $10 billion that the bond invests. Architects of the project estimate that it’s a $42 billion endeavor, with various government agencies kicking in money. That is a large investment, and there might be better ways for California to invest in more locally focused transit and get more environmental bang for its buck.
Of course, mass transit is for more than just the environment: It’s a tool for social justice and mobility. But the idea of long-distance high-speed rail is primarily of interest to business travelers and the relatively wealthy. The people who need subways, trolleys, and buses to get around the fringes of L.A. are poor and working class. Sure, when the Google gang comes down to L.A. they can take the high-speed train instead of flying, but the housekeepers who commute from East L.A. to Westwood by bus or car won’t see their lives change at all.
Even if you’re considering the middle class who might make trips between cities fairly often, high speed rail does little to combat the fact that one cannot get around L.A. or San Diego without a car upon arrival. If people plan to take the train for shorter trips between cities, they may end up needing a car on the other end. For mass transit to really remove auto-dependence it has to connect walkable urban areas.
It’s useful to look at the $42 billion estimated for the high-speed rail project in terms of other public transit projects. The Second Avenue subway line in New York City is projected to cost $16.8 billion to build and will transport 600,000 people daily. That’s 210 million rides per year, many of which are currently carried out by some form of automobile: taxis, cars, or buses. The California high-speed rail line, on the other hand, hopes to have just 55 million trips by 2030. That’s one-third the annual riders for three times the price of construction. What California needs is a Second Avenue Subway equivalent; it may be a network of buses rather than trains, but that seems to me to be the model worth imitating.
I don’t want to set up a false dichotomy between inter-city travel like the high-speed rail initiative and intra-city and commuter transit like city buses; each is beneficial in their own way. But, assuming there is a competition among scarce resources, there must be a healthy debate about not just the need for rail redevelopment in general, but what should be a top priority. High-speed rail is a legitimate social good, and a necessity for economic competition. France and China have high-speed rail lines, and such investments may increase tourism in Northern and Southern California. Ideally, society should embrace supporting both short- and long-distance rail services.
This was the only smart growth ballot initiative on the ballot; there weren’t other initiatives for increasing city transit. The general progressive excitement over the initiative’s success is appropriate, if perhaps out-sized. But the real challenge for Californians—retro-fitting their sprawling suburbs into places where one can live without owning an automobile—still lies ahead.
Ben Adler is a staff writer at Politico, an urban leaders fellow at The Next American City, and former editor of CampusProgress.org.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
“but it might be more worthwhile to increase public transit in cities instead.”
You can do both. Los Angeles County also passed Measure R, an ambitious sales tax hike that will provide for dozens of transit projects in the region.
Measure Q in Sonoma-Marin County passed which would build a light rail line connecting the two counties.
The measure that would extend the BART line to San Jose is also close to passing, though votes are still being counted.
I think it’s deceptive to call high speed rail a mode of travel for the wealthy. It’s not a millionaires’ club.
— Spokker - Nov 19, 03:30 PM - #Unfortunately, Ben, your argument is a complete false dichotomy. Intercity rail and intra-city rail and transit go hand in hand and are funded from different revenue sources on a federal level.
Your comparison of the 2nd Ave Subway and HSR ridership is totally apples-to-oranges. A far better comparison would be passenger-miles (one passenger traveling one mile, which is an industry standard for output of transportation). On that count, intercity trains win hands-down on cost-effectiveness… not that there should be a competition.
Last month, the President signed HR 2095, a bill that sets out guidelines for long-term funding reauthorization for Amtrak and, for the first time ever, creates a dedicated funding mechanism for states wishing to invest in intercity rail capital projects. The Transportation For America coalition has made creating dedicated rail accounts (for both within and between cities) a top priority for next year’s general surface transportation reauthorization.
Passengers of California HSR may very well be lower income workers who can afford to live in the Central Valley and will now have access to jobs in other areas, commuting Merced-SF or Bakersfield-LA.
Incidentally, a UC Merced study found that HSR will bring $3 billion in direct economic benefits to the Central Valley. State estimates show that HSR will create over 400,000 jobs across a variety of sector, which can only be good for the working class.
Whether the state should subsidize fares for the elderly, disabled, or economically disadvantaged is a question of social equity that can be addressed in the future.
All residents who live near the tracks, regardless of income, will benefit from having noisy, pollution-spewing diesel-powered passenger trains replaced by quiet, clean HSR trains that operate on dedicated paths with no dangerous road grade crossings.
HSR will go hand-in-hand with deployment of SB 375, the new state Smart Growth bill, to direct urban development towards transit and densify it. HSR stations will become major nodes of activity and dovetail into improvements to local transit, biking, and pedestrian facilities.
You are mistaken that “there weren’t other initiatives for increasing city transit.” In fact, there were six others in the state: General transportation sales taxes that include money for rail and/or transit passed in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties (but failed in Monterey). Sonoma and Marin Counties both passed a commuter rail sales tax. West Sacramento approved a streetcar system. And Santa Clara County appears to have passed a sales tax increase for a BART extension. These victories are remarkable, given the economic climate and the requirement of a 66.67% supermajority to increase county sales taxes. The voters want more rail, local and otherwise, period.
California is leading the nation with its burgeoning Amtrak and rail transit systems (which already serve the train stations in San Diego and LA and are growing, including lines to East LA and Westwood!).
Yes, much of the state is Sprawlville. But the collapse of housing prices in extreme exurban areas represent the tea leaves of the new economic reality: We need more transit-oriented housing and complete streets that accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. HSR will fit naturally into this new landscape.
— Matthew Melzer - Nov 19, 03:37 PM - #Mr Adler,
— Brian Tyler - Nov 19, 04:06 PM - #I was impressed that your article “Alternative Travel for the Wealthy” recognized the high-speed rail initiative in California (Proposition 1a) as a referendum on Urban Sprawl. Furthermore you are correct in recognizing the “bigger problem is not that you can’t get from L.A. to San Francisco fast enough by train, it’s that you can’t get around L.A. or San Diego… without a car.”
Yet you fail to mention that Proposition 1a explicitly addresses this shortcoming and allocates a, “$950 million local portion of bond funds [for]… intercity, commuter and urban rail systems [that] must provide direct connectivity and benefits to the high-speed train system and its facilities or be part of the construction of the system.” This is part of the smart growth/transit-oriented development that is being planned around these multi-modal stations. Perhaps the best example is in San Francisco where the city’s tallest building, the Transbay Tower (a mixed use residential and commercial development)will be attached to the new Transbay Terminal, the city’s high speed train station. Extensive regional transportation will also be stationed at this location.
I must also mention that your comparison between the Second Avenue subway in New York and the high speed rail initiative in California was very misleading. When you look at passenger miles traveled, a far more relevant figure, the high speed rail system is far less expensive than the subway project in New York. Even still, a true cost-benefit analysis is far more complicated as there are many extraneous benefits (and costs) to both systems.
Proposition 1a calls for high speed rail to be the backbone of a well planned transportation system in California. It will connect California’s already tremendous investment in rail, air and bus transportation systems. It utilizes existing infrastructure and existing rights of way in order to maximize our previous investments. It calls for extensive smart growth urban planning around station. It is a thoroughly well planned system that will change the way Californians live and the impact they have on the world. I only hope you are right in that the rest of the country will follow California’s progressive new example.
Californians voted in favor of every rail transit proposition put before them in this past election. They voted in favor of taking on even more debt at the state level, knowing full well that the state budget is in crisis and fixing it will require cuts in public spending and/or tax hikes in the future. The voted – by 2/3 majorities! – to raise sales taxes in LA, Santa Clara, Marin and Sonoma counties, knowing full well that the state and nation are headed for a severe recession.
They did this not because they are clueless but because the experience of $4+ gasoline combined with a foreclosure epidemic in the McMansion boonies has taught them that depending on oil-powered autombiles and jets alone is a risky proposition in the long term.
As for getting to and from stations, local transit is not the only option. Secondary destinations in particular may decide to create networks of bicycle lanes and paths instead and, to promote the use of folding electric bicycles. Those get 30 miles of range on a full charge and cost a fraction of a plug-in hybrid car.
— rafael - Nov 20, 12:29 PM - #You should try it!
When was the last time you rode Amtrak California? You might be surprised to see what destinations you can get to even with the pathetic network we have today.
There are train connections that will allow you to take shuttles to Yosemite and Disneyland. If you are going to the Bay Area, you can get to BART and its thousands of easy walking destinations. Amtrak California has a fleet of buses that go – with nearly full loads these days – to spurs all over the state. Amtrak ties into Metrolink and into a lot of local bus systems. It serves not only downtown Los Angeles but also cities like Burbank.
The problem isn’t merely that current passenger rail service between San Francisco is too slow, but that it barely exists at all. There is no passenger rail route between the Central Valley and Los Angeles. Amtrak serves this with a fleet of buses driving over Tejon Pass. The buses are fairly comfortable, and they make the transfer as easy as possible, but it still is far less convenient than a rail route.
Trains, unlike airports, can travel directly into downtowns and have stations directly next to workplaces and residences. A train can serve a lot more people and a lot more destinations than an airport.
When I have waited in Amtrak stations and ridden on Amtrak trains, I get the sense that rail travel is alive and well in California… and also that very little of the ridership is coming from “the wealthy”. I see a lot of commuters, a lot of college students, and a lot of elderly going to visit relatives and friends.
Remember, the alternative to 1A wasn’t doing nothing – it was spending as much or more adding new lanes to Highways 99 and I-5, and adding airports to handle the increasing population of the state. 1A is cost effective and will improve the quality of life for Californians in all socioeconomic groups.
— Elaine Lindelef - Nov 20, 03:25 PM - #i am disappointed that my fellow voters in California approved this costly, inefficient plan during the severe state budget crisis.
after living in DC and loving the mass transit system there, i would very much like to see an expansion and improvement in the public transportation options in my home state of California . but the high speed rail doesn’t begin to solve the public transit infrastructure problems in California. i wholeheartedly agree with the author’s point below:
“Even if you’re considering the middle class who might make trips between cities fairly often, high speed rail does little to combat the fact that one cannot get around L.A. or San Diego without a car upon arrival. If people plan to take the train for shorter trips between cities, they may end up needing a car on the other end. For mass transit to really remove auto-dependence it has to connect walkable urban areas.”
— Karen - Nov 20, 04:37 PM - #Are you from california? I bet your not. I would personally love an affordable high speed train that helps me visit friends and family in LA on the weekends. Yea, better transit for LA would be great, but this train will be good to. If you were from there, you would know.
If you think it’s too expensive, well that’s a different story.
— Hugo - Nov 20, 04:50 PM - #are you serious? “alternative travel for the wealthy?” Seriously?
How do you propose that non-wealthy people get from Nor-Cal to So-Cal? Should they take a bus or train that costs almost as much as HSR would but takes 4-5 times as long? Or should they fly, which will take about as long door-to-door as HSR but will be much more expensive when gas prices go up? Or should they take their cars, which you know, are totally affordable for people living below the poverty line and are going to be an even better form of transportation when gas prices are more than $5/gallon.
Did you research prop 1A at all? It also calls for improving all rail corridors in Cali. More than likely, we’ll see the development of a cal-trans/amtrak rail corridor that will enable you to travel between sf and la in under 7 hours, and yes, this will probably be cheaper than taking HSR, but it wouldn’t even be possible if it wasn’t for the HSR funding from prop 1A.
— brian - Nov 20, 05:42 PM - #Oh, and nice research btw, i especially like the picture of Gray Davis, who you know, is NO LONGER OUR GOVERNATOR.
Mr. Adler,
I don’t think I need to reiterate comments already made refuting your opinion up and down other than to say that I agree with colleagues that support prop 1a.
Some things to add though. Estimates project that high speed rail would take 92 million car trips off the road annually. California is expected to grow to 50 million within the next decade. To accommodate that growth on highway 99 alone, it would cost $20 billion. Expanding highway 5, LAX, SFO, and other roads, highways, and airports would exceed $80 billion dollars that taxpayers would be left to pay. The High Speed Rail Authority’s estimates on the cost of the trip would go well below flying or driving especially if gas prices rise as expected.
California is a growing state with two distinct urban centers. California voters made the right choice on November 4th by deciding to join nearly every single industrialized nation on earth who have already invested in high speed rail.
As I read your article, I’m trying to understand where you are coming from. What seems most clear is that you have little sense of how power and momentum are built around state and national priorities.
By passing high speed rail, California voters did not say we prioritize inter-urban public transit over intra-urban public tranist; instead, California voter clearly voiced that we prioritize public transit over continued expansion of roads, highways, and airports as has been the trend in the last half century. It’s time to get California on the right track if you will. By voters supporting high speed rail, we are supporting smart investments and prioritizing public transit. I think you will see major shifts in how public transportation funds will be allocated across the state. It may take a few years, but it is clear we are heading in that direction.
— Mike - Nov 21, 01:23 AM - #mass transit between major urban areas is every bit as important as mass transit within major urban areas.
do you think an influx of mass transit ridership inter-city won’t stimulate mass transit options intra-city as well? within these same interesting that by the end of your article your advocating mass transit in the suburbs!! huh? how does that revitalize urban america again? do you think the urban poor don’t need to travel to other urban areas for job opportunities, family reasons or maybe just vacations away from their neighborhoods the same that the “wealthy” do? how many urban poor do you know?as long as the high speed rail is open to everyone and is more affordable than air travel or driving, then social justice has been served. don’t be a hater!
— SAADIQ - Nov 21, 10:49 AM - #Ben, you raise some important questions, and you are also missing a few things as well – namely that this is about recognizing the need for a better north-south rail link, and doing something about it. That’s kind of it. (whether THIS bond will get us there is another conversation)
Frankly, there are a lot of loaded conversations that happen around transit funding in CA that you seem a bit ignorant to, which makes me think you might not be super familiar with the politics here, which is fine but likely worth noting.
That said, I’m fascinated by the dynamic of th responses here. Some are spot on, some create some false dichotomies of their own that reflect the degree of unwarranted faith people put in this thing.
I did vote for the measure, but am hesitant to buy in to a great deal of the promotion and spin around it. It won’t generate transit-oriented development. Anybody who tells you so drives to work every day. Nobody commutes to LA every day from SF. (Maybe a few, but are they living in high-rises near SFO?) And the passenger-miles-traveled measurement is straight out of the highway engineer’s rhetorical toolkit, and they make your point for you when bringing it up. It’s about efficiency of place, not mile. (That said, not too many of those trips on the 2nd Ave subway are moving cars off the road. Just sayin)
Another commenter notes the transbay terminal in SF, which the director of the HSRA recently said is not eligible for funding from the HSRA, meaning the damn train won’t go downtown.
And the “it would cost more to widen 99 and build another runway at SFO” argument is a red herring . True, but was there a proposal to do that on our recent ballot? Nope, that was two years ago, at about 20 billion as I recall. So, 20 billion for roads, 10 for trains. That is what we Californians are “voicing.”
— Greg - Nov 22, 03:42 PM - #I disagree with your contention entirely.
You can get around Los Angeles or San Diego without a car. I have lived in Los Angeles or San Diego for 20 years and have only had a car for a small portion of that time.
Train service in Los Angeles is going to increase, and soon LA will have the third largest number of mass transit rail track mileage in the USA, after New York and Chicago, even surpassing such East Coast cities as Washington, Boston and Philadelphia. (We’ll have 92 miles in 2 years, about 112 miles by 2020.)
— Scott Mercer - Nov 22, 06:00 PM - #Many other have already refuted Ben’s arguments — I’d just like to add one thing, about the importance of HSR:
If oil were to run out tomorrow, would it be easier for us to start biking across town, or biking across the state? We have NO non-fossil fuel alternatives to long-distance travel.
I have great disagreement and disappointment with this piece. It’s absolutely incredible that a writer can get so many of their facts wrong — it reflects shamefully on the blogosphere.
— Ian Leighton - Nov 23, 11:18 PM - #You are incorrect about the 2nd avenue subway. The vast, vast majority of trips are expected to be diversions from existing transit trips, either those on the Lexington Avenue subway or 1st/2nd avenue buses. This doesn’t mean that the project should not go forward (the Lex is the most heavily used metro in the united states, more than the entire Washington metro system, which is suffering from delay causing congestion and the buses are not particularly fast), its just that we should be accurate.
— Chris H - Dec 2, 08:39 PM - #worst. article. ever.
— II - Dec 3, 01:49 PM - #I can agree. How does it make sense to put a high speed rail into downtown Los Angeles—-when anyway you cut it, it’s hours of traffic to get there.
And the insult to injury is that you can’t take the high speed train from say bakersfield straight to LAX. Our highways and cities are filled with cars and buses going from Sylmar to LAX—-why not cut down on thousands of cars on the highway by going to LAX? 9 million people underserved by this high speed train. Intercity trains don’t help if there is no rapid (NON BUS or NON train stopping at red lights) intra city travel. St Louis, Atlanta, Seattle….are all ahead of Los Angeles. And in the end, I live close to LAX——I’ll pay the $49 bucks to fly to Sacramento. I think most people would agree that going downtown would be a hassle…
— Jeremiah A. - Apr 30, 05:48 PM - #