The Train To Nowhere

We were having dinner with close friends the other night. They are an extremely successful couple, now retired, and have seen more of the world than any other person I know. They like us, have jumped on and off trains, and boats, and trains all around this world (though they have gone a lot further and to places my wife says, “in your dreams.” The surprising thing was that we all came to the conclusion that Governor Brown’s high speed train is not just a joke but insanity.

“Put the money into the regional transits, like BART,” he said. “Put it where it would make the most sense. The freeways are becoming a joke around here – make these trains work, not make it easier for folks in LA to escape.” There’s some truth to that I think.

The infrastructure of the Bay Areas rapid transit is now more than forty year old. New rail cars are being added; it will finally reach San Jose in a few years; and may extend into the eastern outlying suburbs during my lifetime. But put fifteen or twenty billion into it and real money will grow from these roots extending out into the hinterlands—just like it did forty years ago.

High-speed rail is cool. I took it from London to Milan last year. It’s a wonder. And it’s also a wonder how those European economies paid for it. Probably sold the same bonds to the Chinese the Californians are getting ready to sell. It isn’t a question of spending billions of dollars, California will do that anyway; it’s where it’s spent.

People will live where they want, and it is usually driven by costs and value and fear and traditions. They may want to live in their old neighborhood but work forty miles away; all the urban planning and silly state laws won’t change that. The basic twenty-first urban planning is done in most American cities; we are now into the fifth and six rings of outward development surrounding cities. Serving and interconnecting these rings with each other and to the old urban core are what needs to be done. Not build tracks in the middle of nowhere hoping that money will be found to connect them eventually to where the people really are. Governor Brown can create one of his fantasies and in the end it will all turn out just right. Maybe we can use it to bring water from Canada—not that’s an idea.

Stay tuned. . . . . . . . . . .

Nice Shade of Lipstick on that Pig

Now that the Bay Area is waking up to the fact the new bridge has done nothing to improve the traffic bottleneck that exists between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, California woe be to the politicians that sold us this slab of bacon. The goal of traffic improvements, especially those that cost $6.5 billion dollars, is to improve traffic, yes? Don’t you think? 

Same as before - Count them

Yes, I was living in San Francisco when the Loma Prieta Earthquake shook the Bay Area (I was at Candlestick, truly we were). I watched the damaged Embarcadero Freeway torn down giving the city a whole new waterfront thus making the Giants ballpark viable and even the Mission Bay Area more accessible and better access to the core of the city immediately to the north. All these were strong positive answers to the mugging old Mother Earth gave northern California.

Two politicians, when they saw the concept for the replacement span, said NO! The old erector set of a bridge called the cantilever section needed replacing; that was the part of the seven mile span that failed during the quake. A beautiful clean concrete span was proposed to sweep up to Yerba Buena Island and then across the suspension span. Jerry Brown (then Oakland mayor and now California governor), and Willie Brown, (then San Francisco mayor and now glad-handing political sharpie) said, “Hold on, aren’t we the Bay Area? Don’t we deserve something better?” Chagrined and chastised CalTrans and the engineering community said “Alright,” and with typical California haste and waste pinned the redesign on the wall, received mayoral blessings, and with the help of China with steel and prefab parts gave us “The Bridge.” And it only took 25 years.

It fixed nothing. Not one lane was added and not an iota of improvement to the commute and the physical connection between San Francisco and Oakland. There were dreamers who said this bridge would do great things for the tourist trade and the regional transit trade, not! Sure they added breakdown lanes and a bikeway to nowhere, the lights are very cool, and yes you will no longer feel as though you are in some steampunk ride at Disneyland offered by the old cantilever section from San Francisco to Oakland. All for the better, except it’s not. There is a desperate need for some type of traffic stent to open up the east to west traffic and it will never be the Bay Bridge. 

Frank Lloyd Wright's Version -  1949

New Call for the Mid-Bay Crossing

Numerous studies, some going back almost a hundred years, cite the need for a mid-bay crossing somewhere between the two opposing airports of SFO and Oakland. Environmentalists immediately throw a fit and rouse their rabble to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Bay mud and the inevitable environmental Armageddon it would cause (witness the battle to add desperately needed runways at SFO). But this cross-bay connection would have profound and significant impacts on the artery that is the Bay Bridge. So much of the daily bridge travel passes through San Francisco and Oakland that only goes to other parts of the Bay Area a daily thrombosis develops straining the system.

Regional planning groups (ABAG et al) are demanding more density, more vertical construction, more housing, more jobs, more everything all to be forced into the urban core. When traffic is cited as a real problem for this utopian dream their answer is free bikes, free Muni transit, free BART, free bridge tolls. However, there is no free lunch.

This new east/west connection could carry a tremendous volume of almost everything. Traffic lanes obviously – probably five each way, a bike system that connects both sides of the bay, it could also carry BART trains reducing the downtown impacts in San Francisco (also a point of serious blockage throughout the whole BART system - one dead train here kills the system and makes the airports inaccessible). The current bridge carries more than 270,000 vehicles a day, if even 25% could be diverted it would be like adding lanes to the current bridge system. Environmentalists love to point out the lost hours (as if they really care) due to congestion and thrombosis, not to mention the yuck thrown into the air as these cars sit idling waiting for their turn on the ride. Yet if magically every one of these cars could instantly change to electric nothing would change, it still would clog up and in time be even worse

Tappan Zee Bridge Option

This bypass and mid-bay connection must be reconsidered for the long term growth and sustainability (I really hate that useless term) of the Bay Area. Consider the impacts on areas near SFO airport and the increase in densities and development nearer to Silicon Valley. Consider the increased development in and around Oakland’s airport. Both landing areas at each end are flat and eminently redevelopable and have main BART lines nearby. All that is needed is the will to move forward. We changed the direction of the replacement bridge by the whim of a mayor or two; why not take into consideration the Bay Area resident for a change.

Stay Tuned . . . . . . . .

I Wonder As I Wander

I have been wondering (a lot) about where growth and development will happen as we move from this cycle of collapse and retreat. I won't be pointing fingers or shaking my fist at the stars - too easy and accomplishes absolutely nothing. For this session let's just lay back on the couch and think a little about the future.

Obvious Trends:
Currently there are strong regional growth areas, such as Silicon Valley and other high tech areas that will continue to add jobs and more importantly entrepreneurial growth - from little acorns come huge oaks. While sadly I think that most tech manufacturing will still be outsourced overseas, the intellectual capital side will significantly support residential growth and the expansion of nearby existing research facilities. But housing will not be cheap, if anything, too expensive. I am also seeing sales of once high-tech land rezoned into residential use in these same markets - this is market driven as home prices continue to rise. The first builders in are the big regional players followed quickly by the national public companies.

Retail is in turmoil. After almost twenty years of building too much square footage there is a strong sense that this retrenchment (i.e. selling off malls for other uses, converting urban retail to multi-story residential) will have ongoing and serious effects on existing retail centers. The two major players, Simons and GGP are fighting it out in the marketplace with rumors of acquisitions and privatizations. There are too many big box retailers cannibalizing their own markets. Regardless of the "green mindset" people will drive to buy. Look for a return to and growth of well supported and "improved" older downtowns. Retail will continue to be more than loading up the SUV at Costco (but don't short their stock either).

The Boomer market is a head-scratcher. While there is a strong, albeit small, retirement community market - many of these are too remote to be effective. The days of the huge Del Webb communities are probably gone, they will be more modest and actually focused on one particular regional submarket such as south and west side of Chicago, affordable areas of New Jersey, the nearer suburbs of the San Francisco Bay Area. Most Boomers still want to be near their children and grandchildren but an international airport as well. The "urban" life is not for most of them, but think urbane. I also think there is a huge opportunity to develop dense and well amenitized senior neighborhoods with attention to great security and medical support. The things that scare most older people are being alone, ill, and forgotten. Senior and assisted living communities (at all economic levels) can provide these comforts. A good model is Sunrise - but costs are very expensive. This will be a big, big, political issue. Far more then even today's medicare debate, just wait and see.

Look for more and more assisted living communities - this doesn't take a genius to figure out. But they are still more often than not mom and pop operations. I see trends to larger and more resort oriented assisted living facilities. Not everyone is senile and bed ridden - at some time we will all need just a little more help.

What I also hope to see is more regional and sub-regional support for transit systems. This mania for high speed rail will pass as urban areas suddenly realize that the funds they desperately need are going to remote and underutilized areas. Look for expansions of systems such as BART and other Metro lines. One impact is the blowback form neighborhoods faced with freeway widening - they will not except it. The days of stacked freeways are a long time, if ever, away.

And lastly (as noted in last week's blog) look for renewed pushes into the regional edges. Land is cheaper (and way cheaper today than five years ago). This helps to support the primary reason for this edge growth - better and less expensive housing. It drives the enviros and pols crazy - but as always the marketplace will win out in the end. 

Stay Tuned . . . .

The Biggest Boondoggle – High Speed Rail

If you have been following my blogs (and thank you), you know that I am adamantly against the California High Speed Rail (HSR). Since my first HSR post HERE, I have tried to point out its irrelevancy in this day of independent transportation (the car and bus) and high speed transportation (the plane). The current state of heavy rail (Amtrak) is a joke outside of the dense urban areas of San Diego/Los Angeles and the Bay Area corridors from San Jose and Sacramento. There is a lot land between the two regions and to think that our transportation problems will be solved by building an incredibly expensive new system is a politician’s pipe dream. They even have the airport singing their song since the state and the environmental rabble won’t let them expand as they all need to do.

In reality the HSR system is a parallel to the airline system that has developed since World War II in California. The proposed HSR will do nothing for all the hundreds of thousands of residents up and down the state that will have to accommodate the new tracks and trains. It will have to bypass most of the cities in the Central Valley since they will only slow the train down and where they do pass through town they will inevitably cut them in two. But these HSR boosters will not be deterred!

Yesterday new numbers were announced that send shivers down the backs of the already heavily taxed citizens of the state. The LA Times has a great summary article HERE that highlights the growing resentment to HSR and its effect on hundreds of landowners down the state. It has grown from the initial $33-billion, to $48-billion, to now $98-billion, and it hasn’t even started construction. I guessed at least $100-billion last November and I now believe that it will cost twice that amount, that’s at least $6,000 dollars for every Californian. Insanity has found a home.

Don’t get me wrong, I love trains and the trip from London to Paris on their HSR is the highlight of a European junket. But look at the state of the economies of these countries that built these trains. They are even lumping France into the problem states of Spain, Italy, Portugal, and of course Greece. In 1932 Ballyhoo magazine printed a cartoon by Ralph Fuller that had the caption “Tch, tch! What a way to run a railroad!” HERE Since then the phrase has been twisted and revised to effectively say “They don’t know what they’re doing!” This applies, quite appropriately, to the California High Speed Rail Authority as well.

We do need regional trains. We need to expand the current rail infrastructure such as BART in the Bay Area, and Southern California’s anemic Metrolink (41,000 riders per day in a region of over 22 million). BART carries 341,000 per day in a population that is less than third of SOCAL. BART takes people where they want to go. It even goes (finally) to the San Francisco Airport and an extension to Oakland’s airport is coming.

It is estimated that BART costs about a $100-million per mile, but that’s because we nibble at it, five to ten miles at a time. With a greater expansion to the system in one long phase, costs would go down.

Imagine what extensions to Tracy in the east and Gilroy to the south would accomplish. How many thousands of cars would be moved off the highway? How much growth would be supported along these connections? Just look at the last thirty years along BART’s various lines and the impact that the stations had on these towns. It is impressive.

It’s my belief that Californians want a rail system that supports the region they live in. Not a system that they might, once or twice a year, use to go north or south. We do not need a tourist train. We need train systems that support economic growth, facilitate growth outside of the dense and congested urban cores, and add to the vitality of the surrounding communities. Period.

Stay tuned . . . .

BTW: For last Christmas I posted a simple story about a visit by Sally to Santa and his helpers, I offer it again since Christmas is only 50 shopping days away. Enjoy!  CLICK HERE  

High Speed Rail – Should It Be Profitable?

An all-out press has been made in Florida to rationalize the costs for the high-speed link between Tampa and Orlando. The cost of the study was $1.3 million in federal rail dollars (Is this a new form of American currency – federal rail dollars?). This is now the new version of state and federal investment (state’s plan-fed’s pay) and like most private development it’s always good to use OPM (Other People’s Money). But it’s someone’s and you only have to look out the window to see whose OPM it is.

Can high-speed rail be profitable? The greater question is should it be profitable? The interstate highway system, started in the mid to late 1950s and dramatically changed America. Without a doubt it’s the greatest transformer of economies and cities since the late 1800s and the growth of railroads throughout the country. Fortunes were made from both enterprises, one fundamentally private (with lots of federal bonds), the other almost exclusively public through the use of huge federal bonds paid for (70% +/-) by user fees that are primarily gasoline taxes.

The rational, and I do accept it, is that the highway system provided the base infrastructure that permitted the most significant growth and change to America, the suburbs. The cities could not accommodate or even contain the growth of the last fifty years. The interstate highway system facilitated and supported this expansion. We again became a country of small towns and villages. That growth is no longer a trend, it is woven into the fabric of America, as evidenced in the current census numbers being released. The cities are not growing; it’s in their surrounding communities and towns where land, homes, and business opportunities abound.

The ongoing justification for the high-speed rail system is to facilitate the growth of America into this next century. Jobs, as transitory as they are, seem to be the base rational to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to make it quicker to go from inner-city to inner-city. The other arguments are questionable: they will be profitable, they are an alternative to the car, they will spur growth in the cities, and they are “sustainable.”

We have a very good rail system throughout the United States; Warren Buffet thought so, and bought a railroad. I don’t hear the rail companies clamoring for a faster system of moving shipping containers filled with Chinese goods across the country (my guess is that they secretly hope for a separate rail system so the damn passenger trains will get off their rails). As an old Illinois Central executive said a half a century ago, “Freight makes money, people make trouble.”

High speed rail, a point-to-point system, will do little to serve the small towns and villages of America. The best they will do is annoy the residents as they whistle through at one hundred and fifty miles an hour. The interstate highway created jobs by being the great enabler in community planning. Every off-ramp became the local “train station” of the 19th century. Communities evolved and grew; the interstate system became the twentieth century’s version of civilization’s river landings and ocean ports.

If more jobs need to be created, build on and support the existing passenger rail system, freight not-withstanding. Push for electrification, revive the intercity trolleys of eighty years ago, expand and aid BART, MARTA, and other regional Metro systems, focus on regions not continental pipe-dreams.

And remember that there is not one high-speed rail car and train builder in the United States; they will come from France, Germany, South Korea, Japan and China. We have forgotten how to build bridges (the new SF Bay Bridge is from China), railroads, and even toys. And just because Europe and the world have high speed systems doesn’t mean we have to; they still have a few kings and political systems that are a lot different than ours, change anyone?

Stay tuned . . .