
A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck - JamilD
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/a-silicon-valley-train-gets-stuck.html
======
erentz
Question: the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers from
the federal government is pretty crazy to me. I'll grant some imbalances are
necessary - you will always have richer and poorer areas of the country. But
when he gap is as wide as it is, and then it is turned into a tool for
punishing CA due to our politics, at what point should CA seek to seriously
tackle this? Firstly of course is the very long shot possibility of successon,
but I was wondering if there might be something in the tax code that would
allow CA to shut off the flow of money to the federal government? Perhaps by
implementing some kind of massive tax and dividend scheme (e.g. naively I'm
thinking if I'm allowed to deduct state taxes - what stops CA from taxing 100%
of my income, so I pay nothing to the federal government, then CA pays me a
"dividend" equal to my income minus whatever the real tax rate should be (30%
or whatever).

~~~
davidf18
Much of the wealth in California comes from high technology. The research of
the high technology came from the Federal Government. The training of the PhDs
that created the research (think semiconductors) came from the NSF and NIH and
other federal funds.

Thus, it is not unlike a VC making early stage investments in a company.

BTW, I'm in NY State and it also has net tax outflows.

~~~
refurb
_Much of the wealth in California comes from high technology._

I think you need to get out of SV more often.

The top 3 ranked sectors in California by GDP are: (1) health, education -
18%, (2) real estate, rental and leasing - 17% and (3) trade, transportation
and utilities - 16%.[1]

Not sure where tech would fall, but probably in: information - 6% or
professional and technical services 9%.

Silicon Valley seems like it's a big deal when you're in the middle of it, but
it's nowhere near the biggest GDP contributor in the state.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gross_Domestic_Product_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gross_Domestic_Product_of_California_2008_\(millions_of_current_dollars\).svg)

~~~
ec109685
That was from back in 2008 and it isn't well sourced. It from the author "own
work" and a 404'd link.

------
smaili
> By any measure, Caltrain is the equivalent of a dated personal computer
> running Windows 95 way overdue for an upgrade. Rush-hour trains are so
> crowded that their aisles are filled with passengers. Trains break down
> frequently and the locomotives belch plumes of black smoke into the air — a
> sight more in line with the early industrial age than 21st century Silicon
> Valley.

As a frequent commuter, I couldn't agree more with this paragraph.

~~~
mc32
Blame San Mateo county in the 50s who chose against participating in the then
BART _project_. If they had voted in, BART would be going down the peninsula
to SJ (sorry Morgan Hill) and there'd be no need for a Caltrain. But as we
know, SM voted down participating in BART and now we are left with Caltrain on
the pen. and BART going the long way to SJ (via Fremont).

Oh, well, hindsight, NIMBYism, pop growth etc.

~~~
Johnny555
I'll take Caltrain in its current state over BART any day.

BART is a costly system and they've been masking the true costs for decades by
deferring maintenance, the $3.5B they've gotten from taxpayers is just a
portion of what they need to bring the system up to date. And worse, they can
spend up to a third of that on operational costs... which are sky high in part
because BART is saddled with high labor costs and can't rein in its union's
lucrative work rules. Case in point, the Warm Springs station is not even open
yet, but it's fully staffed, including janitors to clean an empty, unused
station.

But the problems don't end there -- BART's equipment is non-standard gauge so
every order is a custom order with high lead times and there's no world market
for BART's gauge. While Caltrain is able to supplement capacity by buying
surplus cars.

And BART is designed with no passing tracks, so there's no such thing as an
"express" train. Want to go from San Jose to SF? Well you've got to stop at
every station in between. While with Caltrain you can take a 5 stop "baby
bullet".

And finally, the capacity of nearly the entire system is dependent on how fast
passengers can get on and off the trains at Embarcadero station. BART has a
billion dollar band-aid for that, by digging out the other side of the station
so passengers can board from both sides. What they really need are multiple
tracks, like what Caltrain has at their SF station (and other high volume
transit systems throughout the world)

~~~
mc32
I grant you the custom gauge issue. That's unforgivable. Labor costs (Janitor
earning quarter mill) are something they can work on --They just seem
unwilling to go the union-busting way. Passing tracks, I'm not aware of most
Caltrain stations having passing tracks --they just schedule things so far
apart they can pass at a couple of stations. I'd prefer more frequent service.

A ring around the bay or a second Transbay tube would alleviate the Transbay
bottleneck.

On the plus side it's all electric and works with minute headway.

------
entee
The bay area is a bit of a mess public transportation-wise, and at least for
this particular project, the cost seems not all that large in the scheme of
things ($1.9B overall, need $647M in federal money). I hesitate to propose
this because I fear there might be a flame war, but is there any way we could
tax some of the large tech companies very slightly to quickly get enough money
to make Caltrain and other public transportation systems modern and
sustainable?

~~~
CaliforniaKarl
I am curious, how many people here use a Caltrain GO pass? If yes, how much is
subsidized by your employer?

Here's an interesting comparison:

48 business weeks of trips, on Clipper card: $3,456 (48•5•2•7.20)

12 monthly passes: $2,289.60 (12•190.80)

1 annual GO pass: $190 (assuming 83+ other people also use it; min. $15,960
spent per company.)

I know (from personal experience) that Stanford is a heavy GO pass user. I'm
curious how many others are.

You may not need a tax. Instead, an increase in the coast of the GO pass may
be enough!

~~~
greglindahl
Isn't the GO pass priced such that you buy it for everyone and then Caltrain
hopes that peak usage isn't too high as a result? Which means you don't have
enough data to evaluate if it's priced correctly or not. I bet Caltrain makes
individual deals with Stanford and other large users that reflect actual
usage.

------
ZanyProgrammer
They should've started high speed rail in the bookends, since any construction
there would have immediate benefits for hundreds of thousands of riders, and
instill public confidence in the project. That would've helped Caltrain
electrification right there.

~~~
gumby
Well the Caltrain electrification _is_ in one of the book ends.

The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance
(as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part
sooner rather than later?

~~~
rocqua
> The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance
> (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part
> sooner rather than later?

This is much like the broken-window-fallacy. The reason not to start in the
middle is because the middle (especially on its own) doesn't have a lot of
inherent value.

Heck, if the train here (minus wages) costs more than it is worth this is a
straight-up broken-window-fallacy.

~~~
ubernostrum
Congratulations! You've proved you can type the phrase "broken-window
fallacy". Just be careful -- if you do it three times in a single comment, a
ghost will appear in your bathroom mirror.

Meanwhile... if you're going to build a high-speed line from SF to LA, why not
start the project by

1\. In locations which already have rail infrastructure, upgrading that
infrastructure to the required standard, and

2\. In locations which lack existing infrastructure or connections to the
planned stops of the line, get the construction on that going

And if as a side effect it boosts the economies of the places in (2), well,
that's a nice side effect. But "we were going to do this anyway, doing it in
this order gets this side effect that's useful" is not the broken-window
fallacy.

Plus, you know, infrastructure isn't generally built for its high profit
margins; it's built because of the profit it generates in other sectors.

------
hueving
>Caltrain plans to use the money to switch to modern electric trains, from old
diesel locomotives that are prone to failure.

I ride the Caltrain about once a week and I haven't encountered a delay due to
a locomotive failure. How often does this happen?

~~~
magila
I commute daily between SF and San Mateo, which covers about a third of
Caltrain's line. I get delayed due to mechanical failures (usually on other
trains) once a month or so on average.

~~~
jdavis703
One just happened last week. A problem with the air brakes that made them
evacuate an entire car on the train. I've been on other trains that lost all
electrical power in the passenger cabs. Had engines that could not start after
pulling into stations. Not too mention when one train breaks down others get
stuck behind it.

------
martinald
This is a real shame. I believe this would have allowed 6trains per hour each
way throughout the day, bringing the service closer to real urban rapid
transit.

It would also have a big impact on journey times as electric trains can
accelerate and decelerate a lot quicker than the current diesel ones.

Why don't they look at variable tolling on 101 (or at least an express toll
lane) and divert funds to this project? That would seem like a win win:
transit users get upgraded service which would encourage more people to switch
and drivers have less traffic to deal with as people move to transit, plus
they can pay for a more reliable journey if they are in a rush.

------
dsfyu404ed
Considering the great job CA has done playing ball with the new administration
I'm not exactly surprised said administration is in no hurry to shovel money
in their direction. /s

------
sjg007
I think the train makes sense. House prices are out of whack and the roads are
packed. It will encourage growth in Modesto and the Central Valley which will
bring not just commuters but other businesses and ease roadway congestion. The
Central Valley communities will improve and it'll reduce pressure on rents
across the Bay area.

------
quietmonkey
The Bay Area would have its money better spent on electric buses anyway. Has
anyone breathed while walking down the road in SF?

------
rebootthesystem
> The Transportation Department is withholding $647 million in federal grants
> for a $1.9 billion project that would modernize and increase the capacity of
> Caltrain. About 65,000 people use the rail line every day to commute between
> San Francisco and San Jose

OK. Just thinking out loud here. $1.9 billion. 65,000 people per day. That's
about $30K per person.

In other words, you can almost buy a Tesla Model 3 for each person. Yet, that
would not deal with congestion. Scratch that idea.

Is this a point-to-point route? Are most of those people going from San Jose
to San Francisco or are there a ton of stops in the way?

Next thought is: How many electric buses could one purchase with that money?
At $400K each, 4,750 buses. That's a lot of eco-friendly buses!

OK, but, how many do we need to move 65,000 people per day? Well, if all
65,000 want to go at once, about 1,625 buses. And that would cost $650
billion, or 1/3 of the $1.9 billion set aside for this project.

How would 1,625 electric buses, for 1/3 the cost, affect the region?

Yet, it is probably reasonable to assume we don't need to move all 65,000
people at once.

In looking around it seems reasonable to assume around 2,000 riders per hour
on average. If we go with 10,000 (why not?) we would need 250 buses. Now our
equipment cost is down to $100 million.

BTW, if we switch to natural gas buses that cost goes down to $62.5 million.
Not saying this is the best option, just providing comparative data.

I am not going to reach any conclusion here. Just exploring very, very rough
numbers quickly. I think this would only work well if the bus riders are "long
haul", meaning they don't have to stop at every freeway off-ramp and navigate
surface streets to pick-up and drop-off people.

One could use check-in/out to optimize bus routes. Don't stop where nobody
wants to get on/off.

There's a lot of space between $100 million and $1.9 billion. That's 19 times
more taxpayer money spent. Is this sensible? Does it survive mathematical
analysis more strict than my quick 10 minute think?

On the one side I think I'd rather spend $100 to even as high as $500 million
on an electric powered bus infrastructure. Why? Because this would be a huge
shot in the arm for that industry and the consequences could ripple throughout
the nation. Bus prices could go down from the current $400K, new technologies
could be spurred into existence and electric vehicle adoption across the board
(passenger cars) is likely to see gains as well.

My numbers could be completely off the mark, I know. That said, on an
admittedly very flawed first inspection, I would not be surprised if investing
a few hundred million on a next-generation electric bus transport system might
be better than dumping 19 times more money on rail.

I doubt this approach would make any sense at all in a place like Los Angeles,
but this Caltrain case might be unique.

I'd rather invest in the future whenever possible.

~~~
acomjean
How I think of it: its 1.9 Billion to upgrade the line and increase capacity.
Say double capacity. You have to average that out over the life expectancy of
the upgrade (20 years maybe, how long have the tracks been there now). Of
course there are maintenance and operation fees, but the railway is probably
paying those now.

So in construction costs: 1900000000 dollar /130000 riders /20 year = 700
$/rider/year.

It helps the economy of the city/state as more people can live and work there
increasing you tax base. Helps housing smooth out housing prices a little as
people can commute the same time from further out.

Also you have to compare against the cost of increasing road capacity. Trains
carry a lot of people and aren't subject to traffic like busses. Nobody likes
taking the bus, it has a stigma for some reason.

Its expensive, but infrastructure always is. Oddly so in the US.

------
mikejmoffitt
One thing that shouldn't change is the Caltrain ticketing UI. The interface is
simple enough to use, and it responds to user input instantly. I can select
the ticket I want with four taps in about a second, where the only slowdown is
the actual payment.

~~~
astrange
My experience is more like:

\- I tap my Clipper card.

\- A Caltrain employee checks my card about every other time I'm on a train.

\- Sometimes they threaten to arrest me because I didn't tap it hard enough 3
days ago.

~~~
mikejmoffitt
Yeah, that's a bummer - but that's not the caltrain ticketing UI. That's using
Clipper on the caltrain.

------
masonic
Only a small amount of that $647 million was going to Caltrain
electrification. It was wrapped in a boondoggle of an omnibus transit spending
bill. The real political battle here is to limit Federal spending on CA's ill-
routed HSR.

The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with _just_ the Caltrain
electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail
through Congress.

~~~
guelo
Voters kicked radical Republicans out of Sacramento so now they're getting
D.C. to their dirty work for them. Luckily many of them will lose in 2018,
including Darrel Issa.

