A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

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...

It'd be ironic if California became more nationalistic than people at the national level --I mean, why not SF county ask residents not to pay Sacto and why not the FinDi ask their residents not to pay taxes to SF county? How far do you want to take that? Down to the "sovereign citizen" -which would seem the opposite of what you are looking for.

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.