With 100% of the San Francisco precincts reporting, but only 95% Statewide, Proposition 1A (high-speed rail) is passing, Measure A (General Hospital) passed, Measure B (affordable housing) failed, Measure D (Pier 70) passed, Measure J (preservation commission) passed, Measure M (harassment of tenants) passed, and Measure N (transfer taxes) passed. The margins:
Proposition 1A – Passing (52.3% voting Yes statewide, 79.2% voted Yes in San Francisco)
Measure A – Passed (84.29% voted Yes in San Francisco, 15.71% voted No)
Measure B – Failed (49.46% voted Yes in San Francisco, 50.54% voted No)
Measure D – Passed (67.58% voted Yes in San Francisco, 32.42% voted No)
Measure J – Passed (56.57% voted Yes in San Francisco, 43.43% voted No)
Measure M – Passed (61.01% voted Yes in San Francisco, 38.99% voted No)
Measure N – Passed (69.00% voted Yes in San Francisco, 31.00% voted No)
Only 49.79% (?%) of voters cast a ballot in San Francisco. Our thanks to those who did.
UPDATE: Hold The Phone (Or At Least The Official Local Election Results)
∙ San Francisco Department of Elections: November 4 Election Summary [SFGov]
∙ California Statewide Primary Election Results: Sate Ballot Measures [ca.gov]
∙ California’s High-Speed Rail Hits Its First Figurative Freight Train [SocketSite]
∙ JustQuotes: Bad Market, Then Back To Big Projects Like Pier 70 [SocketSite]
∙ Landmarks Preservation: Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire? [SocketSite]
∙ Potential November Ballot Measures: Condo Lottery For Two-Units? [SocketSite]
A LOT of Socketsiters proven wrong on Prop 1A.
A great day for SF and California (with the exception of one particular prop).
Only 49.79% of voters cast a ballot in San Francisco.
Can we get at least 50% next time….49.79% is sad
It will be interesting to see how the Preservation Commission plays out. It has to be packed with professionals naturally inclined to maintain historical sites, so there’s the possibility it becomes a real source of difficulty for permits (and an easy attack for NIMBY neighbors).
I guess this means one should be a little cautious about buying a fixer-upper or anything you might want to modify. This might be the first real reason that higher quality places will hold their value more in the coming price slide.
Boy, Measure B was a lot closer than I anticipated for such a horrible (albeit arguably well-intentioned) initiative. As for Measure J, will projects now need to go through both the new Preservation Commission (for preservation issues) and the planning commission (for everything else)? That will mean even longer delays to get anything built or remodeled.
Also, Measure M will likely be enjoined as unconstitutional, and the City will end up paying the other side’s attorney’s fees (figure about $500,000) to challenge it. Dumb waste of city money for an empty gesture of a measure (again, albeit well-intentioned).
Well intentioned – hmm – not sure I by that. Are we as a city about done with Daly and his antics?
How long before we get the train? I want to be on the inaugural ride.
I am NOT understanding this: if M passed, do those 2 units go into lottery?
Some one care to advise??
[Editor’s Note: Measure M had nothing to do with condo conversion and Daly’s proposed two-unit TIC legislation was DOA.]
yeah, even prop 8 passed. Socketsite, you did your part! (running ads for “traditional marriage”)
Seriously though, I think ECONOMICALLY speaking, California’s future is bright due to 1A. It will only “widen the moat” so to speak, and put CA in a more unique position relative to most states in terms of infrastructure capabilities.
Home Girl, it’s supposed to be operational in 2018.
[Editor’s Note: For the last time, we did not support Proposition 8. Google placed the ad without our knowledge (note the “Ads by Google”). And yes, we blocked the URL after it appeared.]
“Home Girl, it’s supposed to be operational in 2018.”
Just in time for the opening of T2 at ORH. 😉
The Historic Preservation Commission is Peskin’s legacy. It’ll be stacked with his cronies because he’ll still have de facto control over the Supes. Basically, it ensures that San Francisco will become frozen in time.
Also, the BOS will now be completely stacked with ultra-left members. It wouldn’t surprise me if Chris Daly becomes the new president unless Mirkarimi wants the job and I’m not sure he does.
Does anyone know how the Prop 1A train’s speed compares with the ones in Europe/Japan? I hear it’s a bit slower than the Japanese one…I could be wrong.
California’s geography I think is really conducive to this. Seems to follow the path of a train well.
Other measures that passed:
BART to San Jose Tax
Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART)
I waited in line for over an hour to vote. Not complaining about it – I was actually excited that my fellow San Franciscans were finally getting involved. Now it turns out we didn’t even manage to get 50% of residents voting? What the f were these people doing? What rock do they live under? It’s a crying shame IMO.
And Sleepiguy, I totally agree with your commment above – the dark side grows stronger. I shudder at what comes next.
Spend spend spend!!
How do you spell boondoggle? M-O-N-O-RAIL!
Prop. 1A is projected to cost something like $100B by the time its finished. The $10B bond authorized by Prop. 1A is just the downpayment on that! And, given the history of major infrastructure projects like this, it will likely cost 2-3x the initial projections by the time all is said and done (and take twice as long). For the trillion or so dollars this will likely cost in the end (after adding up cost overruns, and debt servicing costs, not to mention the ongoing subsidies required to make the train fares competitive with air travel), you could just give every single Californian a hundred free full fare roundtrip flights on Southwest, which is faster anyway, and thereby save everyone a lot of trouble.
jessep,
The overall speed will be comparable to Japanese and European – a lot depends on exactly which trainsets are decided upon. The line itself will support speeds as high as what is acheived in Japan now. Regardless, we’re looking at top speeds in excess of 200 mph.
Also FYI – Bart to SJ did not pass. It needed two thirds and fell just a few thousand votes short.
Does the count total include voters who voted absentee? I also waited for 45 minutes in line to vote and the count total seems low. Does anyone know the turnout in this last election, and how this compares?
[Editor’s Note: While we initially thought it does, it doesn’t. And only 40.22% of voters cast a ballot in June.]
at least prop B failed, although it got a lot more votes than i expected. Overall pretty happy with how the city props turned out.
I have, however wired all my money to bermuda for the time being.
I waited in line for 1 hr and 10 minutes, and almost everyone there seemed to be under 35.
“you could just give every single Californian a hundred free full fare roundtrip flights on Southwest, which is faster anyway, and thereby save everyone a lot of trouble.”
you would have missed the opportunity to create thousands of jobs though…
Having lived in Japan for years, I love the idea of the high-speed train, but I still voted against it.
Just FYI, my polling place in Pacific Heights was deserted. There were more volunteers than voters! However, I suspect most D2 residents vote absentee -at least I hope they do!
“you could just give every single Californian a hundred free full fare roundtrip flights on Southwest, which is faster anyway, and thereby save everyone a lot of trouble.”
Investing in infrastructure creates jobs and industries, handing out free airline tickets does not.
I look at it this way – it may end up being a boondoggle, but with Obama being elected, we’re likely to see increased federal interest in rail across the US. It will be nice to have the industry started in California. We’ll be able to export knowledge to other states, for tasty fees.
you would have missed the opportunity to create thousands of jobs though
You would also have missed the opportunity to bring high speed rail to the U.S. For all of the oil spent shoving people through the air to LA, and the refinery infrastructure it takes to get that oil, and the entire defense infrastructure it takes to protect it (aircraft carriers, billion dollar jet fighters, 10 million dollar tanks, bases everywhere, etc.), you could build 100 high speed trains.
And then we wouldn’t be sending people to die, and all of our money to the middle east, only to have to beg them for it when times get tough.
So when you look at the big picture, this makes a LOT of sense. How long will people keep looking at the short term and putting up with the same problems?!
Oh, Jimmy (Bitter Renter)…thanks for the great laugh.
Note to Jimmy: Everything related to air travel is subsidized. EVERYTHING. Also: every decade or so since the advent of flight your tax dollars are used to bailout the air travel industry as whole. Bailout. What an oddly familiar term…
I, for one, am happy to hear that rail will finally be receiving a modicum of the attention and funding that air has enjoyed for years. And apparently enough of CA is, too.
Not sure why you are celebrating here, considering the Sups races went entirely SFBG (and phony “democratic party”) way, making Daly a likely board president.
Wake up, “fun” times are upon SF 🙁
Well, since this is a real estate blog — let’s have an article on the proposed route, and see if some smart investor can’t buy up a few acres of land that they can use to extort the government.
(e.g. in Boston, some people with inside knowledge were able to buy up plots of vacant land needed for staging the various phases of Big Dig construction, and then re-sell them for huge profits).
Exactly Sashok – the most divisive individual in SF politics, Chris Daly, gained more power and credibility last night – which is a GIANT step in the wrong direction. Not the type of “change” this city needs.
Anyone know when the ban on gay marriage will take effect?
^^^There will be oodles of court challenges in the coming days.
People upheld the rights of farm animals over human beings.
Unbelievable.
What’s up with the pathetic voter turnout? With Prop 8 on the ballot? Very disappointing…
Brutus,
I think it’s over. Endgame. You amend the constitution and I don’t think there’s much anyone can do from a state level,
and a federal decision seems even more remote.
Phatty, Prop 8 goes into effect immediately. Cal. Const., art. 2, § 10(a) (“An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise”).
I was pleasantly surprised by Prop B’s defeat – I took it for granted that it would pass.
But what happens to Newsom’s Community Justice Center now that L was defeated? Too bad Newsom was too distracted to lift a finger for his own signature program.
Jimmy BR – Here’s the UP system map:
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/sysmap.shtml
Let me know if you have any ideas about where to speculate on some land. Harriman, Stanford, Crocker, Huntington and Vanderbilt have probably already grabbed the choice plots. But there will be new pork barons.
“I think it’s over.”
meh. It’s just as easy to un-amend a constitution as it is to amend it. Even with a no vote it just would have come back again and again with every election for the foreseeable future.
It’s only been 40 years since being gay was classified as a mental illness and could get you fired on the spot, evicted from an apartment, or forcibly “treated”. Allow another generation for the fogeys to pass on to their reward and a new generation of kids to start voting and attitudes will shift. It’s normal to want it all now but, really, the shift in attitudes that has been going on has happened at a blistering pace.
diemos,
It’s much more promising to defeat an amendment taking away a minority’s rights than it is to pass an amendment granting a minority rights.
A lot of people voted no on the measure for personal convictions that do not have anything to do with gay marriage.
As an example:
Suppose gay marriage were legal for four years, then it would be HIGHLY improbably that an amendment could pass.
But if it’s illegal, it is a much harder mountain to climb to make it LEGAL through the vote.
[Editor’s Note: And with that we steer the conversation back to real estate. Not because we don’t care, but because that’s what SocketSite is about (and why people plug in). Of course an advanced reader might go down the path of dissecting the potential economic impact of Proposition 8 and how it might affect real property in San Francisco…]
Jimmy – I’m glad that you use The Simpsons as your go-to source for informed public policy analysis.
Try telling airline executives in Europe and other countries with HSR systems that HSR cannot hope to compete with “faster” airplanes. They will laugh you out of the room. Air France has concluded that it’s so hopeless to try to compete with the TGV on domestic routes and is now planning to become a train operator on the French high speed network.
I’m disappointed at that persistent ultra-left dominance of the Board of Supervisors. My only hope, however naive, is that the severity of the City’s budget deficits will force the Supes to do things they might not otherwise contemplate – like *maybe* stop treating business as a whipping boy and perpetual ATM for preferred social programs. The analogy at a national level would be George Bush and Henry Paulson agreeing to nationalize the banks. One can always dream…
gmh — not true, what about all the low cost discount carriers such as Ryanair, Easyjet, Brussels Airways, etc. etc. who still make profits? sThat, more than anything, is what is eating into Air France’s domestic business. Their fares are a fraction of the price of the TGV and the planes are always full. 1 hour in a plane gets you pretty much anywhere in Europe…
Jimmy,
None of those airlines fly WITHIN France. Air France has a practical monopoly on intra-France travel and cannot compete with TGV while making money.
“1 hour in a plane gets you pretty much anywhere in Europe…”
Actually its 1 hour to get to the airport in time for the recommended 2 hour prior to flight check-in. Then the 1 hour flight followed by another hour to travel from the exurban destination airport into town. 1+2+1+1 = 5 hours to go center to center in Europe.
Compare that to a TGV journey from Paris to Lyon/Brussels/Strasbourg. Center to center in about 2 hours.
A quiet real estate winner in 1A is little Gilroy. 45 minutes from Gilroy to SF, 15 minutes to SJ. After HSR is completed, Gilroy will be closer to the SF bay area job markets than South SJ, Los Gatos, Saratoga, etc.
Consider that prior to the Japanese Shinkansen ShinYokohama was a nothing patch of rural land. Now its the home of many high tech offices and the site of real estate that commands prices similar to Tokyo and Yokohama due to its quick connections : 20 minutes ShinYo to Tokyo (and the train doesn’t even travel anywhere near its top speed on that segment).
Rail developments can increase RE values : just open a book on the development of the bay area during the early 20th century and you’ll see how cities developed along rail and trolley lines.
Darn, others beat me to it.
A few things:
Jimmy- You evidently do not know Europe well. A 1 hour flight will not get you from many places to many places unless you are restricting your travel to one small segment of Europe.
It’s a 1 hour flight from Paris to London as example.
The eurostar (high speed train) takes 2 hours 15 minutes (I just took it)
Paris to Vienna is 2 hours
Lisbon to Rome is 3 hours.
Remember: it takes 45-60 minutes to get from the 1st arrondissement to the airport and you have to get to the airport several hours early (international flight). whereas with Eurostar you can arrive 15 min pre departure.
(security is so much lower… much quicker… easier to board, etc etc etc)
I think high speed rail is a great idea, and California is a good candidate for it, ESPECIALLY if they have direct SF-LA routes. You should be able to make the trip in 2 hours 15 tops. No way you could do that on SouthWest Air.
but rail is expensive, and high speed rail very expensive.
Of note: hopefully they go with the new Generation TGV-like trains. Called the “AGV”. MUCH faster and uses 30% less energy than the “old” TGV
on a side note: sorry to hear about Prop 8. but at some point they’ll probably make everything a “civil union” and leave marriage to the religious institutions… so keep your hope. Rome and High Speed rail wasn’t built in a day, and neither are human rights!
The 49.79% of voters might not include absentee ballots and provisional ballots that haven’t been counted yet.
Or maybe everyone living in San Francisco was busy trying to vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada.
JimmyBR hasn’t even been to Europe. In 10 years why don’t you stay stuck in the morass that is 101 while the rest of us zip from SF to SJ in half an hour.
I took Easyjet from Geneva/Cointrin (which is, tecehnically, within France) to Nice this summer.
The flight took less than an hour.
So there.
Also, the Heathrow Express will get you to Paddington in 15 minutes and runs every 15 minutes. So the 1 hour to/from the airport is bunk, too.
You can also fly from London City to CDG in well under an hour.
Last, the Eurostar is not particularly cheap, especially at peak times.
On related topic:
I think we need a grass-roots political movement in SF to get rid of big government, but still adhere to the city’s social and cultural values..(socially liberal, fiscally conservative). This election has shown that republican party(esp old republican party) is dead.
I am still dreaming of the day when a third party will commend sustaining support, so that other party’s don’t take the electorate for granted.
That’s the real change our politics need….
“I am still dreaming of the day when a third party will commend sustaining support”
Like the Blue Dog Democrats (fiscally conservative but socially liberal). Too bad they’re not a separate party. I would become a member.
All this talk about transportation time to airports vs. high speed rail forgets that as of now, it is not even decided if a high speed rail line will go to the city of San Franciso itself. Yes, it could end up in Oakland or San Jose, but good luck bringing the trains up the Peninsula at high speeds. I would bet money that Sacramento and San Jose get stations at least 10 years before we do.
What a lot of people haven’t mentioned in the airline vs. rail debate is comfort. I’d much rather be on a train with better, bigger seats, a dining car, bar car, etc. than being crammed into Economy on a flight for an extended period of time.
anonconfused – you’re probably right that SJ will get HSR service before SF does. Even so a trivial change to calTrain would provide _almost_ as fast service from SF to LA. That change being nonstop express service from SF to SJ. That could be done with zero investment in new equipment or infrastructure (though calTrain will certainly try to gain some $ out of the project). CalTrain could run trains from SF to direct SJ in 40 minutes today if they wanted to : a mere 10 minutes slower than what HSR promises and insignificant compared to the entire journey duration.
Jimmy – Granted, the Heathrow express is fast but this is a recent anomaly in exurban airport connections. Also note that the cheap carriers you reference like Ryan and EasyJet don’t fly in and out of Heathrow. Instead they use Luton and Stansted and there you’re looking at almost an hour from the center to the airport. Finally, like any transportation carrier Eurostar is much much cheaper if you book advance APEX fares : just like it is with Ryan and EasyJet. You have to compare apples to apples. The last time I took Eurostar London to Paris I paid about $80 on a ticket bought a month in advance.
This is all well and good, but even in England, the only high speed rail service is about an 80-mile (or less) stretch of rail from St. Pancras through the Chunnel … and that service connects the 3rd and 4th largest cities in Europe.
San Francisco isn’t even the third largest city in California! (and its not clear if it will even be on the rail line although I’ve no doubt that San Franciscans would be among the major users of the service if it were, just like they are major users of many heavily subsidized government services.)
Sure, the Eurostar is good if you happen to be travling from central London to Paris… but even in a country as densely populated as England, if you’re traveling to Europe from the North, or pretty-much anywhere else in England, you’re far better off flying.
In 15 years, the high-speed rail line will be nothing more than an incredibly expensive, underutilized way to connect a bunch of nowhere central valley towns to LA.
Also, what happens when you find yourself in LA without a car? Unlike European cities, LA has incredibly poor public transit… It will solve nothing and DO nothing but waste hundreds of billions.
Jimmy: how long before your flight did you have to arrive at LHR?
Let’s go with your suggestion that we start at Paddington (lots of tourist hotels, so makes sense to me). It’s 15 minutes to St. Pancras via Circle Line. I could take 20 minutes to find and board my train, and then it’s 2:15 en route to Paris Gare du Nord. So 2:50 Paddington to Gare du Nord via train.
Now the air alternative: 15 minutes Paddington to LHR, >1hr advance arrival, 1hr flight, 30 minutes to get off the plane and find the train station, 35 minutes on the RER to Gare du Nord. That’s 3:20 minimum, or at least 30 minutes more by plane .
I think we could do similar calculations for SF financial district to LA downtown, if you trust the official time estimates. The important point is that with trains, the running time is city center to city center.
but I should say I share your skepticism on the cost and time estimates… From the perspective of a train fan, I hope this doesn’t become a boondoggle.
I go from the SF financial district to downtown LA all the time. Here is the quickest scenario:
Leave office, hop in a cab, to SFO — 30 minutes
1 hour wait to board and leave gate.
Flight, gate to gate — 1:25.
Exit plane to cab stand — 10 minutes
Cab from LAX to downtown — 30 minutes
That’s 3:35 — and generally there are some traffic delays or lines in there that make it a 4 hour-plus trip. Flight delays regularly add an hour beyond even that. And you have to add in the time to arrange flight reservations. If you gave me a 5-hour high-speed train option where I could work or relax the entire trip instead of jumping in and out of cabs and planes, I’d take it in a heartbeat even if it cost the same or more than a flight. Less than 5 hours and it’s a no-brainer.
Jimmy, again, I reiterate, the airline execs (including ones at budget airlines) will laugh you out of the room if you try to give a serious presentation claiming that HSR cannot compete against airlines.
If, as you claim, no one will ride this train, then why does almost everyone on this thread want to take it over the plane instead of you?
At any rate, what’s done is done. If you don’t like it, don’t ride it. Simple as that.
Heh, “instead of” you should be “except for”. I’m pretty sure no one here wants to take you for a ride. 😉
As a property owner in an old part of the city, I was pleased to see that Preservation measure pass. More supply restrictions! Nothing like closing the door right behind you when you get in.
This one is a pain for all the people who fear the over-supply in Soma, Mission Bay, etc. Unless there are some very historic warehouses in the area, it looks like the new constructions will dilute you guys!
As for Daly’s puppets, I thought that we don’t know for sure who won. It’s that whole “Top 3” system.
What’s more, I was to believe that Daly’s puppets would only fulfill the status-quo on the board, not add to his Stalinist agenda. Right?
Jimmy (Bitter Renter) still with the laughs! “Also, what happens when you find yourself in LA without a car?” – ummmm…Jimmy, when you take a plane do you magically arrive in LA with your car? Did prop 1A have hidden language prohibiting car rental agencies from being within walking distance to the train station?
What’s with all the “arriving 1 hour before your flight” talk? As a frequent flier, I almost never check bags and can go from my door to boarding the plane in under an hour. If I stay at my GF’s house in San Bruno, I can (and often do) walk out my door and onto a plane in 30 minutes flat. Its all about efficiency.
I even get to the airport with my shoes untied and my belt buckle undone just so I can run the gauntlet through security that little bit faster 🙂
The future of high speed travel is the “air taxi” model — a dense mesh of direct flights arranged on an ad-hoc basis by private operators.
Trains are so 1800’s. Everyone get with the times.
… and fossil fuels are so 1900s. You can’t fly a jet without ’em.
Ever hear of a nuclear powered jet ? The French TGV however is mostly nuclear powered. If renewable energy sources become mainstream those could also be used to power trains.
The fossil fuel noose is slowly tightening. Hopefully we will awake from our slumber before it is too late.
@ Posted by: Jimmy (Bitter Renter) at November 5, 2008 5:15 PM
Please be mindful of the fact that not everybody is fortunate enough to have a girlfriend in San Bruno.
@Trip:
What’s your theory under which Measure M is unconstitutional?
“In 15 years, the high-speed rail line will be nothing more than an incredibly expensive, underutilized way to connect a bunch of nowhere central valley towns to LA”.
Thank You! Disneyland (Anaheim) will have its HSR station at least 15 years before San Francisco. For those that think High Speed Rail is all about “special” San Francisco, do some research on the HSR website. The San Francisco line is to be built MUCH later, and if the trains someday come to the city, they would run through the Bay Area at greatly reduced speeds.
I think the biggest benefit to High Speed Rail is for families from Sacramento to take their children to Disneyland. In fact the inclusion of a Disneyland Station before San Francisco gets a station is an excellent example of the true economic power of “the city”.
For those of you thinking that SF will not have a station until after Anaheim or Sacramento, please take some time to read the supplemental voter pamphlet that came in the mail. The change from prop 1 to prop 1a made it IMPOSSIBLE for the Authority to do anything EXCEPT the LA to SF segment first.
I’m not sure Jimmy’s “air taxi” model is right, but certainly air has a future in CA too. HSR won’t help anyone going from San Luis Obispo to Reading, or not much anyway. Or taking his Geneva to Nice example – a quick search didn’t turn up anything less than six hours, despite the nice TGV network. And he did it in an hour (plus 2, say).
But it does seem like LA/SF will work.
My nomination for “places benefitting from HSR”: Bakersfield. Passenger rail in the Central Valley basically terminates there and you have to get on a bus for LA. I imagine when the project is completed there will be Metrolink service too.
So did Bart to San Jose fail?
I heard it was too close to call.
If it does, that’s good news for San Francisco as it sort of limits access to San Jose (by rail anyway) through San Francisco.
If it does, that’s good news for San Francisco as it sort of limits access to San Jose (by rail anyway) through San Francisco.
Shhhhh… don’t tell all those folks who commute on the Capitol Corridor to San Jose (with electric plugs for laptops at their seat, a snack bar, and a full complement of adult beverages).
Oh I forgot about that. If you considered the Capital Corridor, why did they even need BART?
Or taking his Geneva to Nice example
These are 2 relatively small metro areas… Geneva only has 200k people. Nice 350k people. That’s why you can’t go direct between Nice and geneva (2 small to medium sized metros in different countries).
That example isn’t really representative of San Francisco and LA, 2 of the most important cities in the US. The Paris/London route is much more comparable to SF/LA (about the same distance, both sets are major metros).
Jimmy: VERY FEW people can leave their door 30 minutes before their plane’s departure time. Again, we’re talking about San Francisco and not San Bruno. If one takes BART from Embarcadaro to the Airport it takes about 35 minutes. From 16th and Mission it takes 26 minutes.
Then you have to take the airport train from BART to the airport, another 10 minutes easy.
Then you have to go through security and get to your gate.
So it’s 36 minutes minimum from 16th/Mission to security. And I don’t know about you, but I’d like AT LEAST 20 minutes to get through security.
(Car time from SF to SFO depends on departure time. if you have early morning flight like 6am it’s easy as pie. but if you have a 9am flight?)
when you get to LA you need to either get a cab (35-60 minutes to downtown LA) or rent a car (same time)
of note, the last time I drove from LAX to Downtown LA it was 430pm and it took more than 90 minutes. But I arrived once in the evening (like 9pm) and it only took us 25 minutes or so.
but like others have said: in many ways HSR only really works if it goes CITY CENTER to CITY CENTER and if there are nonstop routes. (possible exception of stopping once in San Jose).
the thing that makes HSR so fast IMO is the city center aspect, and also the security aspect. You just walk on.
UPDATE: While the San Francisco Department of Elections website notes 241,090 total ballots cast on November 4th in San Francisco and includes 191,962 from “Election Day Reporting” and 49,128 “Vote by Mail / Absentee Reporting,” according to the Examiner and The City’s elections chief up to 136,000 vote-by-mail and provisional ballots have yet to be counted.
In theory the 136,000 votes could change the results of any of the local measures except for A (General Hospital). In reality it’s Measure B (affordable housing) that could most easily swing from failing on the initial count to passing in the end. And perhaps even Measure J (preservation commission) in reverse.
We’ll update the election results as the uncounted ballots are tallied. And assuming all 136,000 ballots are valid, 78.95% of those registered in San Francisco voted (not 49.79% as previously reported). And on this point we are more than happy to be wrong.
jessep, EBGuy: We already have fast rail access from SF to San Jose. It’s called Caltrain and I ride it three times per week. Neither the Capital Corridor + Bart (which you can do now) nor Bart alone (assuming the extension is passed) will be even as fast as Caltrain is today, and with HSR it’ll be even faster.
Thanks for straightening this out. I knew that 50% turnout could not possibly be right.
A lot of Democratic Party activists were out of town, I was in Miami for example, but there is no way that this could have suppressed turnout by 100,000+ votes.
Just to play devil’s advocate on this one, let’s realistically consider what HSR would look like once implemented.
First off, I’d wager the security measures for a train that goes 200 mph would just as strict as those for a plane. I highly doubt you could just “walk on” – expect metal detectors, lines, etc. Time difference between boarding train vs. plane will likely be immaterial IMO.
Second, are we even sure the SF station will actually be downtown? I know ideally they’d like to run it to the new Transbay eventually, but when will that be ready? Most likely you’re looking at a drive to Gilroy or Stockton to get on this thing when the first segment opens.
And how many daily trains will there be to LA? One or two at most. Like many of you, I’m in LA 2-3x a month for business. There’s no way this thing would be more convenient than Oakland to Burbank on Southwest. Forget SFO to LAX. Southwest has like 9 daily flights out of Oakland to Burbank, and both airports are small (i.e. easy to get in/out of) and rarely have weather delays.
Most importantly, with our current budget/economic situation, this will take DECADES to become a reality. Most of us will be retired by then and won’t be worried about getting to LA for meetings.
Before I get bashed, I actually voted yes on this. I figure the state is broke anyway, so why not tack on another $100 billion in bonds. Jokes aside, I agree about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. This is a great investment for California’s future, so I take a long-term view on it. I just don’t expect to get any benefit out of it personally during my lifetime.
Dude,
You need to read the business plan on the CAHSR Authority website. 2-3 trains a day to LA? Try per hour – some would be local, some direct, some semi-direct, some semi-local. Stops at stations take only 2-3 minutes, so even a local train would get you to LA in under three hours.
Security? Dunno. There will likely be some, but I wouldn’t think anywhere near as much as a plane might require. You don’t have to go through security to rent a Uhaul, and that can be driven into anything and blown up. A train is on tracks and can be shut down and stopped remotely.
On the station not making it to SF. Again, read the voter information pamphlet addition that was sent it. The change from prop 1 to prop 1a made it impossible for the Authority to put ANY money towards any line other than SF to LA UNTIL that segment is 100% completed. We have a group set up to fund the Transbay Terminal (though that could certainly fall through, I admit, though there have been no hints at this) AND we have the Speaker of the House from our city, in a government entirely controlled by a more pro-public works party.
I wouldn’t bet against this getting done, under the current circumstances, regardless of whether it goes way over budget.
First off, I’d wager the security measures for a train that goes 200 mph would just as strict as those for a plane.
This is possible. Americans tend to be hyperstrict when it comes to security.
But boarding a train in Europe is nothing like boarding a plane.
as of summer 2007, there was NO security to board the TGV. (that was the last time I boarded an intra-France TGV).
You just show up at the trainstation and walk right on. you are supposed to be there 15 minutes before departure time but I often would just walk right on at 1 minute prior. It’s a large open train station so there is no security to do. It would be hard to retrofit it for security as well. Google “gare du nord” and you’ll see what I mean. Big huge open train station with the trains just right there.
we did have to go through customs and security to board the Eurostar (connects Paris/London) but it was very quick. (it’s because you’re going international). But that was easy-pie compared to the customs at an airplane.
I guess a model of what HSR would be like in America would be Acela on the East coast? I’ve never taken it. anybody know? (that said, ACELA is dreadfully slow, and I hesitate to call Acela HSR)
I understand, Brutus. But I don’t believe there would be SF-LA express trains leaving every 15 mintues. I assume most would be local trains that take forever to get there. Would only be a handful of daily express trains.
And the HSR path is locked. I live in Soma and am basically equidistant from Oakland and SFO. And I can fly into Burbank, LAX, Ontario, or John Wayne. HSR wouldn’t help me if I have meetings in Riverside or Newport Beach. To be specific, today I have the ability to hop on the 6AM flight out of Oakland. I’m in Burbank by 7:15 and can get to meetings in downtown LA by 8AM easily. Same thing for OC or inland empire. Could I do that with the HSR?
And with the amount of daily flights, I can day trip it easily. With HSR you run the risk of getting stuck overnight, so add a hotel stay to travel costs (not to mention 2 days out of the office and away from home). And with a limited set of tracks, it only takes one breakdown to jam the entire system. If a plane breaks, I take the next flight in an hour.
So I can either A) fly and be home the same day, or B) take the train and risk spending the night at the Comfort Inn in City of Industry……guess what I’m doing?
I’m not trying to be difficult, just realistic. I think this’ll be great for commuters in the bay and greater LA areas. I just question its suitability for the SF-LA travelers. Somebody could wave a magic wand and make HSR a reality tomorrow…..and I’d probably still fly. And I wager I’m not the only one.
Acela cannot compare to DCA-BOS in terms of speed or convenience. (I used to take that route weekly for two years). It is a wash for DCA-LGA. I prefer the train in that case.
Dude,
I don’t mean to be rude, but you really do need to do some research on CAHSR, since almost every point you’ve brought up is on the website.
Trains would run from very early in the morning until very late at night (think 4am for the first departure and midnight for the last departure). “Local” trains would not be the slow trains that you’re thinking. We’re talking less than ten stops, at less than 2 minutes per stop (standard Japanese stop is 65-90 seconds in length – and their trains run on-time more than 99.5% of the time). When everybody is waiting to board, and not everyone has to be seated with seatbelts tightened before you can leave, stops are pretty meaningless. A local train would be only about three hours SF-LA.
It is true that first off there won’t be stops in as many places as there are airports, but in the second stage (not even full build out, but just the second phase) all of the places you mention will have HSR (if not actually at the airport, in the general area). In addition, there will be other stops not currently served by an airport, which will likely grow considerably (think downtown Fresno and Bakersfield as the obvious ones, but Gilroy, Sylmar, and others are there too).
Many of the benefits of HSR are in the attitudes and development that will be nurtured and created. It won’t just be a “this is the way we do it now and the train must BEAT every way that we currently do things or it sucks.” New markets and ideas will be opened.
Here’s a pretty good interactive map:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm
The first phase is the SF to LA leg, this is set in stone by the proposition.
ex-SF-er,
I haven’t ridden Acela in a few years, but there was very little security the last time that I did. No metal detectors or anything like that, just a few dudes standing around with German Shepherds.
I have run so many times last minute from the Metro station straight into a TGV, I concur with the statements that high speed trains in France are often just like regular trains in terms of access. You need to book a seat, therefore it’s not a “get into the first available train” kind of thing. But it’s very flexible.
The security on the EuroStar is mainly for terrorism reasons, as the train enters a 30 miles long tunnel and having any kind of explosion would be devastating both in terms of human lives and infrastructure destruction.
There are very very few accidents with high speed trains. The german ICE had a large crash under a bridge a few years ago. A bomb exploded on a TGV more than 10 years ago and did not cause much damage overall. These trains are built like back-bones: when they derail they are usually going straight except when they hit an obstacle like the ICE.
High speed trains are great in many respects for European countries. Medium/large Cities apart from each other by 150 to 300 miles. Cities built around a core of an old city where walking is easy and public transportation is of outstanding quality.
For the high-speed trains to be useful in CA, SF and LA will have to greatly improve their local transportation. But there’s nothing like a good challenge to stir things up and move ahead.
@ Brutus et al: I admit I haven’t fully done my homework here – thanks for the map. Bottom line: if I can substitute riding the train for flying (in terms of time and cost), then count me in. I did, after all, vote yes on the measure. I want to believe!
I just fear the reality, once implemented, will be far different than the ambitious plans (and at multiples of estimated cost). And it will take decades to complete.
HSR advocates may be right, and this may eventually be delivered as promised. But by the time I’m proven wrong, I’ll likely be dead or rotting away on some Caribbean beach anyway. Now…who wants to buy some bonds?
To show how far Europe has gone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2008.gif
Security is no where near as big of an issue on HSR compared to airlines. I’ve boarded 6 different HSR systems in 7 countries and only one had any form of security, Eurostar requires a quick check and that is most certainly due to the chunnel being a high profile terrorist target. On the rest of the systems you just show up to the platform and get on. I’ve transferred from subway to HSR within 5 minutes (was sweating that one though !).
It takes a lot more to cause a disaster on HSR compared to a plane. The small explosive that the shoe bomber nearly detonated could have taken the entire plan down and killed hundreds of people. The same bomb in a HSR carriage would not have derailed the train and the extent of human carnage would have been limited to ruptured eardrums.
All of the death and injury caused by the Madrid bombings were a direct result of the bombs themselves. There were no secondary deaths due to derailments. Terrorists likely targeted trains because they knew that they would be packed with commuters. Any crowded location could have been targeted with similar casualities, including the security queue at an airport.
I’m not saying that trains are safe, just that they are much less vulnerable to air travel and hence require less stringent security.
Milkshake, there was however a very deadly accident in 1998 on the ICE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster
Yeah, I know about Eschede. It would have not occurred had there not been a center post in the overpass. You will find that no HSR project constructed since has allowed center post supports along the trackway.
Granted, this was a big high profile wreck. But in the next 24 hours more Americans will die on our roads than the number of people who died in the Eschede wreck. You have to put this stuff in perspective : even though you won’t open tomorrow morning’s paper to a headline “120 PEOPLE DIE ON ROADS IN THE PAST DAY !!” this CARnage happens every day, day after day. But if half that many people die in a plane crash you will see that headline.
And as I mentioned before, rail travel is not 100% safe. No transport mode can claim 100% safety, not even walking. What really matters is relative safety. And although air travel scares a lot of people it too is relatively safe thanks to many safety and security precautions.
Dude:
I agree with you on a few points
1) HSR will not replace air travel, nor is it meant to. Instead, it should work in conjunction with air travel. (that said, depending on future oil prices HSR could overcome air)
2) HSR will be most effective for large metros to large metros, getting you to city center (as I’ve already said). it loses effectiveness if it stops a lot or if it is speed limited within metro areas, but it still can go quite quickly.
3) a lot of this depends on execution. Here is where I have my biggest misgivings. Americans are HORRIBLE at public infrastructure projects IMO, at least in comparison to overseas governments. I am not sure that the state of CA or the US could mimic what the French or Japanese have done. Europe and Japan have been on the forefront of mass transit for decades and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
I mean just compare Acela with TGV.
thus I agree with you it’s very possible this turns into a boondoggle.
but if I lived in SF proper and was going to LA or the near West LA suburbs, and there was an AGV-like train that left every 1-2 hours, I would take the train instead of the plane. I just love that you NEVER have to worry about weather delays or choppy flight or lost luggage or cramped seating or plane delays or security hassles or any of that. when I take the train I get off the train refreshed and ready. by the time I leave an airport I’m usually annoyed and irritated.
but it would of course come down to time and convenience. can California do it? who knows.
HSR of course makes San Francisco that much more of a world class city and increases the value of property here, at least in the long run. In the short run, the construction may make parts of SOMA less desirable to live in.
Building the HSR is less than building a similar sized freeway and California’s population is continuing to grow, so we need to find some way to move people around. Having more than one transportation option is just better engineering anyway. Building more airports would cost almost as much and generate much more pollution. Plus air travel has gotten more and more difficult and time consuming as time has gone by. There used to not even be security screening. Now you have to stand in at least three lines to check your bags and board and with the economics of air travel, there is no reason to expect that this is going to do anything but get worse.