New Geography

Author: Kirsten Moore

  • Bus Versus Train: A Dying Debate

    The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s cutbacks on its bus line, eliminating about 12% bus service, illuminate the problems of mass transit in LA, specifically the relative inefficiency of trains in the city. This 12% is a further reduction after the 4% cutbacks six months ago, sparking anger from the Bus Riders Union. Metro Chief Executive Art Leahy says that his decision to decrease spending is a result of the low ridership, yet city trains, which are also underperforming, remain relatively untouched.

    Leahy argues that buses are easier to eliminate, re-route, and reschedule than rail lines are. However, he also says that the cutting back on lesser-used bus lines will free up the resources to enhance the ones in higher demand. Many bus riders feel that they are getting a raw deal seeing as bus lines, which transport 80% of the MTA’s passengers, only get 35% of the operating budget to begin with. This being true, how much is the other 65% really helping the rail lines then?

    The Bus Riders Union thinks that the MTA’s preference for trains over buses is an unfair reflection of class interests. Because rich people do not take the bus, there is no incentive to keep it running. As is becoming increasingly clear, especially with the current high-speed rail discussions, rich people don’t want to ride the train anymore either. This local debate, therefore, is not an argument of whether to cutback on buses or trains; it is an argument about how to deal with the general decline in mass transit.

  • More Cap and Trade Delays in California

    The California Air Resources Board had good intentions when it developed a cap-and-trade plan to meet greenhouse gas standards, but according to a San Francisco Superior Court Judge, the Board made a few mistakes that will delay their efforts. The Air Resources Board is acting in response to AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which calls for the reduction of carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

    They are being sued by a team of environmental groups, represented by the San Francisco’s Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, who disapprove of the Board’s inadequate analysis of alternatives to cap and trade. Not only that, but Judge Ernest Goldsmith found that the Board’s “analysis provides no evidence to support its chosen approach.” These issues are becoming commonplace in California these days, as they echo the criticisms of California’s High Speed Rail Authority’s quick decisions in building new rail lines.

    The California Air Resources Board will not be able to move forward until it complies with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which Governor Reagan enacted to make sure agencies in California both determined and prevented the environmental consequences of their projects. The environmental groups who raised this lawsuit, who would be disappointed if AB32 were to be delayed or abolished, want to assure that any environmental legislation would not hurt disadvantage communities in the state. Therefore, they are willing to wait for the Air Resources Board to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and explore the possibilities beyond cap-and-trade.

    Acting too quickly without fully exploring all options has become a theme in California politics, mainly because the state is in such a rush to meet deadlines outlined in the legislation or that dictate the disbursement of federal funds. This haste to develop may ultimately hinder new projects since the public will be extra vigilant in making sure agencies find solutions that support their well-being.

  • Housing Crisis in Australia

    Even if Australia is a beautiful place to live, it is far from affordable. Results from the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey show that some of the country’s major cities rank near the bottom of the list of areas with affordable housing. Out of the 325 cities analyzed, Perth ranks 291st, Melbourne ranks 321st, and Sydney ranks 324th. At 6.3, 9, and 9.6 respectively, each one has a median housing price to median household income ratio at least three to six points higher than the 3.0 price to income ratio demarcating affordable from unaffordable housing. Compared to these places in Australia, living in New York or London seems almost reasonable.

    Residential property prices in Australia have risen 250% in the past ten years, mainly due to the Government’s concentration on incentives for investors and speculators. A first home buyer’s program and negative gearing incentives for home and property owners have taken a toll on the housing market, creating such “inexcusable” conditions according to Australian Greens housing spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam.

    The 2008 Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability’s investigation into this issue reveals that the Government spent about $50 billion annually on capital gains exemptions and negative gearing incentives, while only spending $512 million over the course of five years to improve the supply of affordable housing. Rental affordability is not much better, as indicated by the gap of 493,000 affordable and available rental properties in Australia.

    Ludlam and others have started to call this a “crisis,” an adequate term given migration trends all over the world. Cities with unaffordable housing, such as New York, London, and San Francisco, are losing people moving to the less expensive suburban areas. If Australia continues to have housing bubbles and affordability issues, cities like Melbourne and Sydney may experience high out-migration rates in the coming years, which would not bode well for cities on the rise.

  • Trying to Keep Hope Alive: High-Speed Rail in Illinois

    Despite the rejection of high-speed rail in many states, Illinois is trying to revive it. The Illinois Department of Transportation recently made a cooperative agreement with Union Pacific and Amtrak to fund passenger rail improvements for its line from Chicago to St. Louis with a $1.1 billion federal high-speed rail grant. The project, to be completed in 2014, would make transit more efficient between the two cities, but as many other states have realized, the numbers indicate that this efficiency is not worth the cost or the trouble.

    The high-speed trains set to carry passengers 284 miles from Chicago to St. Louis would do very little to drastically change the commute experience. When the Illinois Department of Transportation first applied for this grant one year ago, they claimed that the trains would cut travel time between the cities from 5 hours 20 minutes down to 4 hours 10 minutes. However, current estimates now put the trip time at around 4 hours 32 minutes. As with every high-speed rail proposal, it seems, planners set the bar too high and end up either spending more than the public bargained for or overestimating the benefits of these billion dollar projects. How efficient will high-speed rail be if it costs more than people can afford and does relatively little to enhance the commute?

    Union Pacific’s terms in the agreement are not settling for riders either. According to CEO Jim Young, the company’s priority is “to protect Union Pacific’s ability to provide the exceptional freight service our customers need and expect,” and not necessarily passenger rail operations. Not only that, but there are no consequences stipulated in the agreement for if the railroad fails to meet on-time performance standards for passenger service, stipulations withdrawn from the initial agreement by the Federal Railroad Authority. High-speed rail was advertised to the public who would be paying for it with tax dollars and the divergence of their tax dollars from the state’s other pressing needs, but those developing the system do not seem as concerned with this large pool of customers.

    Local governments all over the country are recognizing the flaws with high-speed rail projects and are starting to act. The incoming governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have cancelled plans for a high-speed rail line while Florida governor Rick Scott doubts the cost effectiveness of what Michael Grunwald of TIME magazine calls a “glorified Disney shuttle.” Many inside and outside of California have also vehemently voiced their opposition to the “railroad to nowhere,” a line that would connect Corcoran and Bakersfield and would be the first costly step in its overall plan to connect San Francisco and Anaheim. Since projects are stalling in many other states as well, it might be worth it to take a second look at the necessity of high-speed rail at the present time.

    The influx of Republicans into Congress along with this local opposition may pressure the Obama administration to cut back funding for high-speed rail and work on fixing the deficit. However, this high-speed rail grant for Illinois shows that the federal government is not about to abandon the pipe dream yet.

  • Younger Crowds are Right in the Middle

    When looking for a place to settle down, one might consider cities with active cultural scenes or intellectual communities. However, young people today are looking beyond those factors and moving to where the jobs are. Portland, for example, has a thriving social scene and is one of the nation’s leaders in attracting college graduates, but it ranks 40 as the best place for young adults. A high cost of living, stagnant job growth, and a 9.6 percent jobless rate among 18 to 34 year-olds have tarnished Portland’s reputation as the dream city for life after graduation.

    You can see the economic shift in this country by looking at the best cities for young people. The Southwest is now the haven for those in their 20s and 30s looking to establish their lives and careers. Austin, which ranks number one on the list, has the highest annual employment-growth rate in America at 2.8 percent. This has increased the concentration of 18 to 34 year-olds in its metro area to 28 percent, the most of all cities in the study and well above the average of 23.1 percent. Washington, D.C., Raleigh, Boston, Houston, Oklahoma City, Dallas-Fort Worth and Tulsa round out the top eight.

    However, economics do not dictate everything. North Dakota, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, is still not a major draw for those right out of college. The cities that have attracted young people in droves not only offer employment and lower costs of living, but also provide some sort of cultural scene. However, if the recession continues to limit job growth on the coasts, North Dakota may build its metro areas to cater to younger crowds, and thus provide them with more than just a steady, good-paying job. Fargo has seen positive net migration every year since 2003, and the state of North Dakota was positive for the first time this decade in 2009. The middle of the country is slowly becoming hot place to be.

  • Beyond Grassroots and Into Congress: California High-Speed Rail

    While most of the substantial opposition to high-speed rail in California previously came from local government leaders and citizens, primarily in the Bay Area, Congressmen are now taking the issue to the entire country for debate. House Representative Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, introduced H.R. 6403, also entitled the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Rescission Act,” which would allot the remaining $12 billion in uncommitted stimulus money to the US Treasury to help relieve the national deficit of $1.3 trillion. At least half of that $12 billion is set to go to various high-speed rail projects across the country.

    Although the divergence of money to the US Treasury would not have a significant impact on the national deficit, it would greatly affect California’s high-speed rail plans. The project, now estimated to cost $43 billion, relies heavily on federal money because it will only receive voter-approved state bonds on a matching basis. No federal money, no bond money. So far, it has gotten $2.25 billion from Washington, $200 million of which has already been spent on planning. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Rescission Act would halt the development of the largest high-speed rail project in the country.

    Lewis and 27 other Republicans in the House are pushing for this bill, not necessarily because they think the Democratic Senate or President Obama will let it pass, but because they want to start a movement to stop wasteful government spending. Whether or not anything comes of Lewis’ efforts, he is forcing his fellow members in Congress to consider how high-speed rail fits into national economic priorities.

    President Obama will not abandon high-speed rail anytime soon- he has invested too much into it at this point. Therefore, if the federal government is going to put any kind of controls on funding poorly planned projects like California’s high-speed rail, it will have to come from Congress.

  • HSR Just Doesn’t Fit

    According to many economists, including the well-respected Robert J. Samuelson, the federal government’s effort to fund high-speed rail lines is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. If one really breaks down the numbers, the Obama administration’s goals of reducing green house gas emissions, traffic congestion, and oil consumption with these rail lines are idealistic to say the least, and this idealism may cost states more than their budgets can handle right now.

    The administration wants to build rail lines in 13 urban corridors throughout the nation, 12 of which span distances of less than 500 miles. High-speed rail in these areas would compete with car and air travel, but statistics indicate that this would not save a significant amount on energy costs. Assuming daily air passengers, about 52,934 people in the 12 corridors in 2007, switched to high-speed rail, the result would amount to only a 2.5% drop in air passenger totals. Driving is even less likely to decrease seeing as 85% of the 140 million Americans drive to work each day. If you take the example of the Northeast corridor with 45 million commuters, only 28,500 of which take Amtrak, high-speed rail will not divert enough drivers to cut the amount of energy costs that the administration claims it will.

    However, they use high-speed rail models from Europe and Asia to justify spending upwards of $10.5 billion on this infrastructure of the future. The problem with this is that the successful high-speed rail lines, the most successful of which are the Paris-Lyon and the Tokyo-Osaka lines, are located in densely populated urban areas. The United States became heavily suburban in the past half century and the percentage of the metropolitan population living in central cities dropped to 32% in 2000. As a result, jobs spread out to the suburbs and more Americans are even working from home. Rail service to big core cities will be even less useful as this trend continues.

    Washington will end up footing most of the bill for these high-speed rail projects, especially in states like California that have massive budget woes and few interested private investors. In fact, California is asking for $19 billion for its now $42.6 billion project. That’s almost twice as much as the administration has paid for all the high-speed rail projects in the nation combined (currently $10.5 billion). If this starts happening in every state waiting to get high-speed rail, even if it is on a smaller scale, the federal government will have little money to address the country’s more pressing needs, such as education.

    Some state governments are starting to wise up. Not wanting to waste money on unfruitful high-speed rail lines, they are simply rejecting federal money for these projects because they would not be able to spend the funds on things they really want, like better roads. Obviously, the federal government won’t be able to force high speed rail on Americans for long.

    There is no doubt the Obama administration has good intentions for high-speed rail, but good intentions don’t always translate to success. Rather than try to wedge its idealistic vision of a new transportation infrastructure into the realities of recession-ridden America, it should evaluate what the country truly needs.

  • California Expenses Putting a Strain on Business

    Is it any wonder why California’s economy has been so sluggish during the recession? According to the 2010 Kosmont-Rose Institute Cost of Doing Business Survey, one-third of the nation’s forty most expensive cities are located in California, deterring businesses from setting up shop in the state. The increases in sales, income, and vehicle taxes in 2009 further depressed the business climate and exacerbated the problem of unemployment. Though local governments are trying to cut costs and boost local businesses, they have not been able to reverse the effects of outrageous taxes and fees.

    As one would predict, the ten most expensive cities in California in 2010 are located almost exclusively in the Bay Area or Los Angeles Area. Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco round out the Bay Area localities with San Francisco actually making the top ten national rankings as well. Beverly Hills, Culver City, Inglewood, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Santa Monica all represent Los Angeles County while Rancho Santa Margarita fills the final spot. However, none of these cities joined San Francisco on the national list.

    There is one thing missing from Kosmont’s national list of most expensive cities: the Great Plains states and Midwest. With the exception of Chicago, there are no cities on the list from the area between Arizona and Ohio. Even in the West, there are only three cities, San Francisco, Portland, and Phoenix, that made the top ten.

    Where do we find the least expensive cities? They are in the middle of the country, of course. Five of 2010’s least expensive cities are in Texas, one is in Nevada, and one is in Wyoming. Texas has fared surprisingly well during the recession, as have states like North Dakota. Low business costs and a bustling energy industry have made these states havens for new businesses and job seekers alike.

    Companies in California are now packing up and moving north and west to save money. Friendlier and more stimulating business climates in states such as Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado are luring companies like Google, Hilton, and Genentech. As Larry Kosmont, President and CEO of Kosmont Companies, commented, “Just being located in California, cities are at a ‘cost’ disadvantage right out of the gate.” If California wants to keep the companies that bolstered its success during the beginning of the decade, it must reconsider its recent tax hikes and have faith that improving the business climate will stimulate the economic growth that the state sorely needs.

  • California’s New Grassroots Movement: High-Speed Rail on the Peninsula

    In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A to allocate $9.95 billion of the state’s money to a high-speed rail system. Just two years later, many of these same voters are yelling and screaming at the High-Speed Rail Authority to revise their plans. Why have Californians turned against this project so quickly?

    Initially High Speed Rail seemed like a wise investment. The California High-Speed Rail Authority posts a video on its website of President Obama outlining the benefits of high-speed rail systems. However, by now this video seems a bit dated. In this April 2009 speech, Obama claims that not only would high-speed reduce travel time and emissions, but it would also decrease gridlock and save or create 150,000 jobs. It would be faster, cheaper, and easier. As if that were not enough to convince you, he goes on to say that the project is “on schedule and under budget.”

    Yet today, the California’s high-speed rail system has stalled. Citizens and state officials alike have lost faith in the rail authority to competently plan, fund, and build a rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The project’s developers continue to scramble to secure funding.

    Not surprisingly, the cost of HSR in California has soared well above initial projections. Estimated costs for the first phase alone have risen from $30.7 billion in 2008 to $42.6 billion, adding over $10 billion to the original total of $45 billion. This is a problem. Though it received $9.95 billion in bonds through Proposition 1A, the California Rail Authority still must depend heavily on private business to foot a significant, and likely growing, portion of the bill. California treasurer Bill Lockyer has doubts that the rail authority will be able to sell the deal – due in part to a lack of consistent estimates in ridership or cost – to either potential bond-buyers or California consumers.

    Perhaps an even more serious problem has been caused by the hastiness with which California’s HSR is being developed. There often has been little consideration for local public opinion.

    A case in point lies on the Peninsula just south of San Francisco. The rail authority is hurrying to build on the Peninsula so that it can qualify for federal funding. But they have run into a flurry of complaints from city governments and citizens. Though it initially proposed building a trench system, essentially a shallow box for the train that would be covered at street crossings, it backed off on the idea in an August 6 application for federal monetary support. Instead, the Authority plans to run the line mainly on aerial structures to save money for later construction. “If the trench solution is selected,” it claims, “then less infrastructure could be implemented.” Since then it has switched to erecting aerial structures in Burlingame as well.

    Many cities along the Peninsula have rebelled over these abrupt adjustments. One of the primary arguments for high-speed rail has been to help the environment, but qualms about aerial structures are also rooted in environmental concerns. Menlo Park, Atherton, and later Palo Alto filed a lawsuit against the rail authority in 2008 in a partnership with four environmental groups, complaining that the authority did not conduct a thorough environmental review of the trench system before scrapping the idea. Judges in Sacramento are currently reviewing the authority’s plan to use the southern Pacheco Pass entrance from Merced, which the plaintiffs claim is less ecologically friendly. Decisions like these do not fit with California state environmental laws that require agencies to study several alternatives before approving a project.

    This lawsuit only made minor gains in addressing the cities’ complaints. While a Sacramento judge required the rail authority to make some concessions in the 2009 ruling, it sided with them on most of the issues, mainly because the state’s responsibility in this project remains unclear. However, recent developments over aerial structures have stimulated a tsunami of lawsuit threats. In one editorial, Martin Engel, a transportation commissioner for Menlo Park and opponent of California’s high-speed rail, rallies the Bay Area using a mob mentality: “Those towns that have refused to join the PCC out of fear of Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto’s penchant for lawsuits, now have to re-assess their reluctance. Lawsuits are the only genuine legal negotiating tools at our disposal.”

    But, in reality, lawsuits are not the only weapons in the Peninsula’s arsenal. Democratic Assemblyman Jerry Hill of San Mateo has threatened to put high-speed rail back on the ballot if costs start to surpass initial estimates. This puts enormous pressure on the California Rail Authority since every day delayed means a rise in costs. If it does not secure the support of Peninsula cities soon, these extra expenses will push costs over the estimate and push the project back to the voters.

    San Mateo and Burlingame, though not involved in Atherton and Menlo Park’s original lawsuit, have just as much cause to complain. Almost one-third of the track crossings on the Peninsula would be in both cities. Building will certainly disrupt the businesses in the cities’ respective downtowns, many of which have flourished with locally owned boutiques and restaurants. Burlingame, “The City of Trees,” prides itself on the natural beauty of its neighborhoods. Cement walls carrying clamorous trains will undoubtedly disrupt this bucolic reality. If high-speed rail is put back on the ballot, it is likely that these cities will vote it down.

    Communities, not just city governments, are coming together to stop high-speed rail. The Community Coalition on High Speed Rail in Palo Alto, for example, is holding a presentation about the rail authority’s use of eminent domain in this project. The proposed elevated rail structure would displace residents, some permanently, and would lower the value of surrounding homes because of the elevated noise and traffic. The Coalition has been very active throughout the summer and will continue to fight for Peninsula residents.

    The already dire situation with Caltrain, the Peninsula’s current rail system, should provide a warning for city officials about the viability of high-speed rail. It has cut costs recently because of decreased ridership, which now averages 2,000 fewer riders per weekday compared to 2009, a 5% drop. Train stops have already been eliminated from Tamien in San Jose down to Gilroy. Caltrain’s experience has hardly shown the viability of expanded rail service.

    To some, high-speed rail epitomizes a new era of California infrastructure innovation. Yet a less sanguine reality is seeping in. Project costs continue to rise even as ridership estimates decline. The resulting increase in ticket prices creates even less of an incentive to choose rail over air travel. Even worse, the California Rail Authority is beginning to alienate potential riders from the Peninsula down to Los Angeles, many of whom could conceive of more useful ways to employ the state’s slender resources.

    Kirsten Moore is an undergraduate student at Chapman University and native of the Bay Area. She is a double major in history and screenwriting, focusing primarily on US social history.

    Photo of high speed rail station groundbreaking by mayorgavinnewsom

  • California’s Cities Should Look to Oxfordshire

    California, now in the midst of a heated debate on high-speed rail, could learn a thing or two from a few small villages in England about consolidating their opposition. Residents from five villages in Oxfordshire created the Villages of Oxfordshire Opposing HS2 (High-Speed Rail 2) action group to voice their concerns about the proposed project.

    HS2 would link London and Birmingham by 2025, going through Finmere, Mixbury, Fingford, Fulwell, and Newton Purcell in north Oxfordshire. Not only would the rail line greatly alter the countryside landscape, but it would also create an immense amount of noise pollution. Trains would run through these villages at 250 mph about every three minutes. On top of that, rail authorities are giving out little information to citizens who are growing frustrated.

    The Chairman of Villages of Oxfordshire Opposing HS2, Bernie Douglas, wants the group to influence rail authorities to route the line away from the area and raise awareness about the detriments of a high-speed rail line in the countryside. He has certainly succeeded in the latter goal. The group’s meeting in April drew more than 80 people from an area with only 100 homes. However, their efforts for the former cause have been largely in vain. Transport Minister Phillip Hammond and HS2 Ltd, the company behind the project, have not responded to the group’s letters.

    There is hope for Oxfordshire, though. A spokesman for the Department of Transport claims that “No final decision will be made on whether to proceed with a high-speed rail line or on its route until any scheme has undergone a full public consultation.” If this is true, it is almost certain that the rail line will not run through Oxfordshire.

    Cities on the Peninsula have similarly started to band together to oppose the California Rail Authority, who has decided against using the much preferred trench system to cut costs, but opposition remains scattered throughout many different groups. Lawsuits from a few cities and organizations have driven the authority to reconsider the trench system, but the project seems like it will continue to progress, much to the dismay of many unhappy California residents.

    Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton, who are at the forefront of the opposition, need to gather support from other cities on the Peninsula to truly affect the future of high-speed rail in the state. It is easy for the California Rail Authority, backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, to defend its position from a few cities, but a united Peninsula coalition would be a tough obstacle to overcome. Maybe Burlingame, San Mateo, and their neighbors should take a page out of the book of Oxfordshire and use collective action to more effectively voice their concerns.