Tami Etziony
Public Sector Economics
Mills College Spring, 2012
California High Speed Rail –
Economic Growth Analysis
Contents
Abstract
High-seed rail studies
assess business, employment, tourism and residential patterns along the route
and compared hubs with peripheral stations. These economic calculations of intersecting
variables complicate the analysis and could reach inaccurate conclusions. The California HSR project is a monumental
undertaking; by current estimates the project’s first phase will cost $68
billion. This size project could not be launched
by private enterprise due to the risks for profitability and the required large
investment costs. When ridership predictions
do not materialize HSR could become an expensive luxury. Therefore HSR falls into the category of
natural monopoly. The state has economic
interests in developing this massive project for a competitive advantage over
other economic centers and the benefits for its growing population. California’s population growth is projected to
more than double its current size; HSR will provide a structure of smart growth
with long-term benefits.
Introduction
The decision to build a
High Speed Rail (HSR) system has financial, economic, environmental and social
components. These aspects of the project
affect all of California’s residents, through financial burdens or shifting
economic priorities, benefiting one region or another. The state has the obligation and incentives
to provide a viable economic future to its citizens. This future growth expands the tax revenue
and provides a competitive market base for global interactions. However due to the scale of this project, the
original investment must be provided by the state. At a later stage of the process private
investors can take on operation of the project or create investment
opportunities. Since the HSR is on a
scale of a natural monopoly in order to capture the economic benefits from this
process the state has to provide the initial costs.
An accurate cost
benefits assessment would include projection of population growth, social
economic benefits at the HSR hubs and businesses, as well as residential configuration
related to travel opportunities. HSR can
bring business opportunities, employment mobility, residential growth and
tourism to the Central Valley.
Vast expanses of the
California highway network connect the far reaches of the state, making car
travel long, costly and polluting. The
car culture cultivated by the automobile industry destroyed the social
relevancy of rail transportation in the interest of highway expansion. Environmental benefits of HSR through emission
reductions incorporate economic benefits to Central Valley communities’ health
and agriculture interests.
Calculating these
trends in terms of economic value is a complex process since these aspects
intertwine and influence each other. The
California HSR project is a costly undertaking.
If ridership predictions do not materialize, the HSR could become an
expensive luxury. However, with
projected population growth in California at 60-70% of its current size, the
foresight of directed growth will provide long-term benefits. By increasing connectivity, the HSR opens up employment
opportunities and services to a wider population. California HSR will connect the San Francisco
and Los Angeles’ tourists with access to the Central Valley, which opens up related
business opportunities.
In this report, I will
compare California’s unique characteristics with HSR studies of other
countries. The comparison will include
population growth, spatial plan of HSR and integration of periphery locations
within the network. This analysis will
provide an understanding of the economic growth anticipated from this project
and its prospects.
[“Definition of 'Natural
Monopoly'
A type of monopoly that
exists as a result of the high fixed or start-up costs of
operating a business
in a particular industry. Because it is economically sensible to have
certain natural monopolies, governments often regulate those in operation,
ensuring that consumers get a fair deal.” (Investopedia, 2012)]
Economic growth increases around public transportation stations
HSR as a mode of public
transportation directs economic growth to station locations. HSR
will increase economic activity along its route in the Central Valley, since
every station becomes a desirable hub. In
the California scenario, the Central Valley could see economic growth in
several respects. Real-estate prices could
rise due to easier access to economic centers’ jobs such as in San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Los Angeles. Property prices around transportation
stations tend to rise due to increase walk-ability options. Economic activity geared towards tourists will get a boost from the increased access
that connects the coast with the Central Valley. The valley residents will benefit from greater access to numerous
education and health centers, and services availability. The mode-shift benefits and market’s
accessibility redirects population’s movement and land availability.
Today’s dense population
centers such as the Los Angeles area would benefit from flexibility and
population mobility through commuting opportunities. In addition to other social benefits of reducing
congestion and pollution, economic growth and diversification of markets
increases regional economic stability and improves local services (CHSEA, RES,
2008). Elements of social benefits inherently
derived from public transportation are education, health and housing access, with retail services associated with
all three.
[“Social benefits -
The total benefits of an economic activity to both the individual and the
spillover effects to third parties. Social benefits are the total of private
benefits and any external benefits.”] (Biz/ed)
Most studies of HSR (Albalate,
2010; Ahlfeldt, 2010) note the economic growth associated with this
transportation mode in the hub centers and only a slight increased economic
growth in periphery locations. In the
California plan, there is no hub-spoke structure but a north-south system connecting
two main economic centers of Los Angeles and San Francisco, with shorter
connections to the further urban centers of Sacramento in the north and San
Diego in the south. In this
configuration, the Central Valley stations act as periphery and Los Angeles and
San Francisco as hub locations. The
periphery communities support the employment needs of the economic hubs, and
the hubs in turn provide higher paying jobs to the periphery locations.
Business travel sets the standards
Business trips are the
main consumers of HSR systems (Martin, 1996).
Business travel benefits by easy access to city centers, comfort and
efficiency that surpass air travel and vehicles.
The California HSR is
looking at the Spanish system since the geographic and population conditions
are similar. In Spain
“a young woman from Madrid taps away at her laptop keyboard, occasionally
pausing to answer her cellphone…” For business travelers the HSR system is a
convenient way to travel due to the time benefits on board and easy access to
town centers (Sheehan, 2012).
|
Demographic Data
|
California
|
Spain
|
|
Surface area (sq. km)
|
423,970
|
505,645
|
|
Population (millions)
|
36.55
|
45.20
|
|
Density (people per
sq. Km)
|
88.1
|
89.6
|
|
GDP per capita ($)
|
49,894
|
36,451
|
|
Railway network (Km)
|
12,408
|
13,338
|
|
HSR network (Km)
|
-------
|
1,563
|
|
Roads (Km)
|
133,086
|
165,646
|
|
High-ways (Km)
|
24,526
|
13,156
|
|
Data from CA HSR Blog
|
Spain spent
approximately $60 billion on its HSR system in construction and expansion costs. By comparison, CHSRA’s
latest estimates stand at $68billion. A
year after Spain built the first line between Seville and Madrid; The HSR had
more than half of all passenger travel on this route and car travel fell from
60% to 34% (Graph and numbers, Sheehan, 2012).
High-speed rail
ridership peaked in Spain at approximately 17 million in 2009 and the
government is planning to expand the system to the tune of $77 billion over the
next decade (Sheehan, 2012). With the
economic downturn ridership declines and the financial crisis in Europe makes
that sizable expense less palatable.
Higher connectivity
between economic centers leads to growth regardless of an existing travel
bottleneck (Martin, 1996). This means
that even though the travel options
in California are not beyond capacity the lack of connectivity between the
economic centers of northern and southern California limit economic activity in
both. Although the airports in
California are not yet beyond capacity they do “face long-term capacity
restraints.” (CHSRA, Econ Impact Bay Area)
Therefore, HSR travel is set to reduce this long-term strain and open up
opportunities for cross-country and international flight that are more
profitable.
Improved transportation
infrastructure and connectivity increase economic regional accessibility
(Ahlfeldt, 2010). Current conditions
limit travel due to inefficiencies and costs, whether in time or money. These
are lost opportunities for Los Angeles and San Francisco. The business community in both coastal
centers are directly involved in the negotiations with the HSR authority (CHSRA)
to assure the system provides their needs. The success of the HSR is dependent on these
negotiations. At the last revision of
the system’s business plan the issue of a cost-effective one-seat ride from San
Francisco to Los Angeles was raised, and the CHSRA asserted that they intend to
provide such service (CHSRA, 2012).
The business
destinations determine the efficiency and accessibility of the system, while
leisure travel raises profitability by adding seasonal travel patterns. The HSR route is set up to support the
business community and connect economic centers. These economic centers already developed
their infrastructure to provide connectivity within them. The periphery on the other hand does not have
the infrastructure to provide this access. For the California HSR to be successful in the
periphery destinations of the Central Valley state and local governments are
obligated to provide adequate bus services and infrastructure to incentivize
the HSR travel (Murakani & Cervaro, 2010).
The periphery locations support and promote the economic activity of the
hubs. All referenced studies confirm that
HSR raises economic viability and global competitiveness of the current
economic centers. Community investment
in the Central Valley takes proactive measures to support such a process.
Pollution reduction, time and health benefits increase aggregate economic benefits
HSR is an investment in
a transportation mode that reduces pollution, saves traveling time and increases
accessibility to services as well as elevates
the standard of living in California. The
relatively high standards of living that we have come to expect entice quality
professional jobs and skilled employees to the state. Higher wages increase aggregate social
benefits and demand for services.
The social benefits of
HSR reach many other facets of our lives.
The health benefits due to reduced pollution and reduced accident are
difficult to assess however, the reduction in these negative externalities are
a definite benefit of HSR.
HSR will help
California meet its CO2 emission target to correspond with AB32 the
state’s commitment to global warming solutions. This report states that “a HSR
trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles will save 324 pounds of CO2 over
the same trip by car.” (CHSRA, Econ Impact Bay Area)
HSR reduces pollution
by diverting travel from more polluting modes.
Although HSR has high contraction emissions, the ongoing operation of
HSR is low in emissions, making this mode preferable to vehicle and air
travel. Some studies of HSR do not take
into account the construction pollution from other modes of transportation such
as highway and airport expansion. Instead,
they compare the HSR project to existing infrastructure of other modes. This is appropriate when examining Japan’s
HSR since the Japanese population increased by only 2%. California’s population is forecasted to
increase dramatically, especially in the Central Valley where population growth
is expected to reach 48.5% (Author’s calculation from Counties data; see table 1). Road and airport construction in California
would require expansion; otherwise, they would reach over capacity. The predicted diverted in-state trips from
San Jose Airport to southern California, for example would alleviate the need
for runway expansion (Bay Area Council Economic Institute).
Efficient use of energy
is a long run investment in pollution reduction associated with health and
agricultural benefits. HSR energy
demands tap into the state’s commitment for cleaner electricity sources. Another overestimation in several studies (Chester,
2009 and Chang, 2011) calculating California’s electric production pollution,
as it currently stands, however with the state’s commitment to reducing GHG
emissions, these pollution levels are expected to decrease significantly. Current CO2 emissions per kWh are
at 0.681 lbs in the San Francisco Bay Area (EPA estimation tool) while state
average is 0.9 lbs per kWh (Fowlie, 2010). Under AB32 standards, these emissions would be
reduced by approximately 35% (Fowlie, 2010).
Sweden’s CO2
emissions per kWh in 2009 were 28 gram (0.062 lbs), with target of “41 TWh of
end-use energy savings by 2016.” A
conservative study of mode transfer in Sweden indicates “an annual emission
reduction of 17,500 ton CO2 – (per million passenger/ km) by a new
high-speed rail,” (Akerman, 2011). This
illustrate the importance of HSR in CO2 emissions reduction in
California, overall the United States emission standards lag European standards
considerably. The intra-air travel in
Sweden is not as close to capacity (Akerman, 2011) as it is in California. All studies in listed references agree that
HSR operates with lower emissions to both vehicles and air traffic. The comparisons of current infrastructure for
car and air travel to high-speed rail construction (Akerman, 2011; Chang, 2011;
Westin, 2012) do not include the California population growth and overused highway
infrastructure.
While limiting
pollution is one health benefit, access to medical centers is another. HSR will provide access to populations with
limited access to services by connecting to coastal economic centers, where the
options for non-emergency medical procedures and specialist visits are readily
available. HSR will increase access
within the Central Valley as well. This
greater accessibility improves services whether medical of educational in
nature. The Central Valley institutions
will be available for coastal populations and vise versa. This process of easier access promotes
diversification and specialization that benefits the state as a whole.
Saving traveling time
is a social benefit as well. Although,
as reported (Martin, 1996), most HSR trips are for business purposes, saving
travel time is a social benefit whether for business or leisure. Time saved improves productivity. This timesaving could translate into an easy
commute mode of transportation. Bedroom
communities already provide the labor force for the coastal economic centers of
San Francisco and Los Angeles. The HSR
could become a commute mode of choice and ease the housing demand in the high
cost centers.
Smart growth vs. uncontrollable freeway expansion is an obvious economic choice
Sustainable
and smart growth is an aggregate economic benefit. Population growth can become an economic
weight when planning does not address a community’s
needs. Connectivity to employment and
services increase aggregate income and therefore tax revenues. Higher salaried positions depend on inter
county access. Transportation is a vital
part of smart growth plans. This
structured concentrated growth around service and retail hubs helps absorb
population growth in an integral way to current population centers and jobs
availability. Smart growth limits sprawl
by creating denser population centers around jobs and transportation. Uncontrolled sprawl increases externalities
from CO2 emissions and extensive paving that restricts vegetation,
which is a carbon sink. Smart growth via
large-scale public transit projects creates concentrations of housing and
services that support the communities around them. With the expected rise in the Central Valley
population, using smart growth models through HSR stations as community hubs
will ease environmental stress from sprawl.
Future population growth in California spreads to the relatively less
populated region of the Central Valley counties, following accessible lower
property prices. The coastal economic
centers do not show population growth percentages as high as the Central
Valley. California is actively reducing
sprawl through the implementation of SB 375, California’s Sustainable Communities
and Climate Protection Act. This
legislation connects global warming to the impact of urban sprawl. HSR stations can be used to concentrate
economic activity and housing near transportation connection to employment.
Population growth in the Central Valley could
become an economic gain or a strain on California’s economy. If this population growth depends on
low-level industrial or large-scale agriculture jobs alone, the over-all social
benefit will be minimal. HSR would
provide skilled maintenance positions as well as office and retail
opportunities. These jobs provide a
higher pay scale, which increases the multiplier effect on the aggregate
economy. It is in the interest of the
state to support viable business and community services for the growing
population in the Central Valley raising the social benefits to the state as a
whole.
HSR helps redirect
employment opportunities housing construction and services without expending
the current footprint of Central Valley cities.
At the height of the real-estate boom, San Francisco employees extended
their commuting neighborhoods to include Pleasanton and Livermore, and as far
away as Tracy, up to 50 miles commute.
HSR with BART connection will provide a commute corridor for San
Francisco Bay Area jobs. This access
will support the high-tech and financial sectors. HSR in California is a powerful tool for economic
diversification. Albalate shows that
industrial zones move away from HSR hubs due to higher real-estate costs (2010). Services and retail surround hubs as well as
financial and other professional businesses.
In order to capitalize on the hub’s growth opportunities local and state
governments providing financing and support will extend the benefit through a
local transit system that feeds the HSR travel options.
HSR benefits flow to
the Central Valley with real estate and tourism activity. HSR could expand tourism in the Central
Valley. Besides direct travel, the
Central Valley is a gateway to the Sierra Nevada. The Modesto station could provide easier
access to Yosemite Park, which will decrease the car trips into the park
meantime increasing visitors. The Fresno
station will provide easier access to Kings Canyon and Sequoia National
Parks. The Sacramento station will provide
easier access to Lake Tahoe area. The
HSR could invigorate the tourist industry to include more organized tours and
bus services along the HSR line.
Finances
The CHSRA revised the
original business plan to create a more financially viable option. This Revised 2012 Business Plan begins with
three powerful words; Better, Faster, Cheaper, which sum up the evolution of
the process and resulting plan. Three
funding streams back the HSR, proposition 1A, Federal financing and private
investment. Prior to this revised plan
the HSR project’s budget was off track and did not reflect funding
sources.
This revised plan has
an initial operating section between the Central Valley and Los Angeles,
projected to be finished in 10 years.
Another element of the plan is blending HSR with existing services. This option will cut costs and increase
efficiency. This early investment in
bookends sections of the route, will electrify Cal-train by 2020 and another
will update existing service in the Los Angeles basin. Prop. 1A money will finance some of the
smaller projects. The first phase of HSR
plan includes these projects and is projected to cost $68 billion and completed
by 2028. The improvements will build up
ridership and supply extra financing through ticket sales. By 2025 ridership will provide the system
with operating funds since ticket sales exceed projected maintenance costs at
all levels of ridership.
The CHSRA is
collaborating with private investors on funding sources for the project. They estimates that once the first segment is
operational and the financial risk decreases, the private sector will provide
adequate funding.
California
Alliance for Jobs reported that UC Merced students chanted “If you build it, we
will ride it!” and carried a cardboard train at a rally on February 2, 2012 at Sacramento’s City Hall (2012).
The HSR represents
California’s economic future, with direct benefits to the business community. The current business plan is a profitable
option and private investment will gain directly and indirectly from utilizing
the system.
Rail and transportation history in the United States
The United States auto
industry curtailed the rail systems in countless cities. While Europe and Japan heavily invested in
comprehensive rail systems, the United States expanded its highways. There are many reasons for the lack of rail
lines in the United States, the country’s size, the car culture and the
fragmentation of the states’ budgets and regional political influence. The American car companies deliberately
cultivated the car culture to undermine the acceptance of public
transportation.
One of the ugliest
chapters that promoted the car culture at the expense of light rail is narrated
by the documentary “Taken for a Ride” by Jim Klein and Martha Olson. According to the documentary, General Motors
viewed the light rail systems as direct completion to car sales. They set out to destroy the municipal light
rail across the country. In the 1920’s
all major American towns had light rail with dedicated lanes, which was
efficient clean and comfortable transportation.
By the 1940’s most rail systems were gone and the tracks removed,
replaced by noisy dirty and bumpy diesel buses.
The documentary reveals how General Motors through its subsidiaries took
over and promptly demolished the light rail in cities across the United
States. The monopoly involved General
Motors, its subsidiaries Yellow
Coach and Greyhound as well as Standard Oil, Mack Truck, Phillips Petroleum and
Firestone Tire. They were found
guilty, but since there were no anti-trust laws at the time (1936) each company
was fined only $5000.00 for conspiracy charges.
By the late 1940’s the
damage had already been done and very few rail systems survived, the ones that
still operated were struggling. Locally,
Oakland had the light rail Key line prior to the establishment of AC transit
busses that serviced Alameda County. The Bay Bridge light rail lines including the
Key Lines, were dismantled in the 60’s for car travel (Swenerton, 2008).
Conclusion
The California HSR will
provide a framework of a smart growth development model for the state’s growing
population. By most conservative
estimates, as long as costs are kept low, this project will bring prosperity to
the entire state through connecting dispersed urban centers. The Central valley would greatly benefit from
improved connectivity to the coastal regions and economic hubs. In many studies of HSR the interlocking
aspects of economic criteria complicate simple analysis. Fluctuation in economic conditions and
influences of travel habits whether for business or leisure confound straight
forward analysis. Conditions in
California are different from other HSR locations and comparison models do not
include all variables such as population increase, infrastructure limits or
energy production and pollution levels.
These limitations in comparison analysis undermine accurate
assessments. Including highway expansion
and air traffic is crucial in evaluating the efficiency and benefits of
High-Speed Rail.
HSR will provide the
skeletal structure that can support wide range of public transportation
offshoots. This north-south connection
creates numerous options of economic growth along its route and has the
potential of advancing California’s prosperity by leaps and bounds.
2012 2050
Madera 150,000 413,500
Mariposa 18,000
28,000
Fresno 940,000 1,900,000
Orange 3,000,000 4,000,000
Kerns 850,000 2,100,000
Los Angeles 10,000,000 13,000,000
San Joaquin 691,000 1,800,000
Totals 15,649,000 23,241,500
Selected counties along
the HSR route show 48.5% growth in total populations in these counties.
(Calculated by Tami
Etziony for this report)
Table - 2
Carbon
Footprint Calculator Assumptions
General Information
- Typical PG&E Residential Customer — Monthly Household Energy Use1
- Electricity Usage: 540 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
- Natural Gas Usage: 45 therms (winter 60 / summer 24)
- ClimateSmart Rates1
- Electricity: $0.00254 per kWh
- Natural Gas: $0.06528 per therm
- PG&E Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Rates2
- Electric: 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh
- Natural Gas: 13.446 lbs CO2 per therm
Average
Per Capita CO2 Emissions (Energy and Vehicle Use)
Average Californian
22,941 lbs CO2 per person
Assumptions:
22,941 lbs CO2 per person
Assumptions:
- 2005 California Per Capita Electricity Usage: 7,032 kWh7
- 2005 California Per Capita Natural Gas Usage: 422 therms7
- California Emissions Rate for Delivered Electricity: 0.879 lbs CO2 per kWh8
- Emissions Rate for Natural Gas: 13.446 lbs CO2 per therm9
- 12,000 miles per year and 21 miles per gallon for average passenger vehicle10
- Burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 lbs CO26
PG&E website
Sources
Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M. and Arne Feddersen
From Periphery to Core: Economic Adjustments to High
Speed Rail
Documents de Treball de l’IEB 2010/38
Akerman, Jonas
The Role of high-speed rail in mitigating climate change
– The Swedish case Europabanan from a life cycle perspective
Transportation Research, part D 16 (2011)
Alberta high-speed rail
Copyright Alberta High-Speed Rail (2005) Inc. 133 5th Ave.
SE. Calgary AB. Canada T2G 0E3 Telephone 403-208-1606
Albalate, Daniel and Germa BelGiM-IREA University of
Barcelona
“High-Speed Rail: Lessons for Policy Makers from Experiances
Abroad”
Research Institute of Applied Economics
California High-Speed Rail; Economic Benefits and Impacts in
the San Francisco Bay Area
BAY BRIDGE HISTORY TIMELINE
San Francisco * Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Safety Projects
Brown, Dennis M. Regional Economist; Economic Research
Services, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Public Transportation on the Move in Rural America
California
Counties – California State Association of Counties
CAHSR Blog
CHSRA – California High-speed Rail Authority
Authority Approves Revised 2012 Business Plan CA
High-Speed Rail: Bay Area SF-SJ [san.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov]
Cahsr_map.svg
- map
California High-Speed Rail Program
Revised 2012 Business Plan Building California’s Future
APRIL 2012
CHSRA - Regional
Economic Studies
California Alliance for Jobs 2012
High-Speed Rail Belongs to Our Generation
Calperg
- Report Shows Corporations Paying Few State Taxes;
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Creutzig, Felix Planet Under
Pressure
Recently in Sustain to gain Category
Environmental research web letters
de Rus, Ginés and Gustavo Nombela
Is
Investment in High Speed Rail Socially Profitable? Published March 23, 2006
Journal
of Transport Economics and Policy, Volume 41 January 2007 pp. 3-23
florio.economia.unimi.it/Materiali/MEEW5/deRus.pdf
Deller, Steven C. Tsung-Hsiu (Sue)
Tsai, David W. Marcouiller, and Donald B.K. English
The Role of Amenities and
Quality of Life In Rural Economic Growth
American Agricultural Economics
Association; May 2001: 352–365
EPA
Fowlie Meredith
Impacts of AB 32 on California’s electricity sector - UC
Berkeley and NBER
giannini.ucop.edu/AB32/ab32fowlie.pdf
"California's Climate
Change Policy: The Economic and Environmental Impacts of AB 32"
Monday, October 4, 2010 The
California Museum 1020 O Street, Sacramento, CA
California to Vote on
High-Speed Rail Nov. 4
TreeHugger.com
Gruber, Jonathan
Public Finance and Public Policy 2nd
edition; Worth Publishers, New York, NY 2007
Chapter 7 Public Goods, Chapter 8.2 Measuring the Benefits
of Public Projects
Hagler, Yoav
BACK ON TRACK: AN EXAMINATION OF CURRENT TRANSPORTATION
NETWORKS
AND POTENTIAL HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEMS IN THREE U.S. MEGAREGIONS
Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia
University May 2008
Highlights found at: Filling the Transportation Efficiency
Gap: High-Speed Rail Petra
Höjer, Mattias and Lars-Göran Mattsson Determinism and
backcasting in future studies
Environmental
Strategies Research Group, Box 2142, SE-103 14 Stockholm, Sweden
Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
Available online 3 July 2000.
Japan 1870-2100; Page 2: Population of (Japan)
Kantor, Shawn Ph.D. University of California, Merced
The Economic Impact of the California High Speed Rail in the
Sacramento/Central Valley Area
Published in: UB IREA Research Institute of Applied
Economics University of Barcelona; 2008
LAO – Legislative Analyst’s Office
California’s Non-partisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor May 10, 2011
Executive Summary
Liu, Zhi Senior Transport Economist, The World Bank, Bankok
2005
Transport Investment, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANTRANSPORT/.../TransportG...
Martin, Fernand
Justifying a high-speed rail project: social value vs. regional
growth
The Annals of Regional Science 1997
Department of Economics, Universite´ de Montre´al, C.P. 6128
Succursale Centre-ville,
Montre´al, Que´bec, Canada, H3C3J7
(Tel: (514)343-7216, Fax: (514)343-7221, e-mail: econo@ere.umontreal.ca)
Murakami, Jin and Robert Cervero
California High-Speed Rail and Economic Development:
Station-Area Market Profiles and Public Policy Responses
Symposium, December 2010, Faculty Club UC Berkeley
OOSTERHAVEN, JAN AND THIJS KNAAP
Spatial Economic Impacts of
Transport Infrastructure Investments
Pearman, P. Mackie & J.
Nellthorp (eds) Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation Needs
and Capabilities, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2003, pp. 87-1
PG&E Pacific Gas
and Electric
Population Count based on the 2010 Census Released
Statistics bureau of Japan (SBJ)
2010 Japan Census; October 26th 2011
Sheehan, Tim
Spain’s high-speed rail system offers lessons for
California
January 15, 2012; California Watch
Swenerton, Jeff
When Trains Ruled the East Bay; Here's What Happened to the
Half-Hour Commute
Oakland Magazine January 2008
Photography by: John Harder Collection
Sweden Energy efficiency report
www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot316.nsf/veritydisplay/.../sweden.pdf
Latest update: February 2011
Taken for a Ride/ documenrty
US High-speed Rail Association - USHSR
No comments:
Post a Comment