-
California High Speed Rail
Proposition 1A, placed on the November 4th, 2008 California ballot, passed 52.5% in favor to 47.5% opposed[1].
The initiative allocated $9.95 billion in bonds to begin building a true high-speed rail system connecting Sacramento, the SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego. $9 billion will go toward contruction of the main SF to LA line, with $950 million expanding and improving local connecting rail service.
The Basics
The plan is to create a state-of-the-art high speed rail system that stretches from northern to southern California, incorporating the San Francisco Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose), Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles and Anaheim. Eventually, the rails will extend as far south as San Diego. The line will run through the plains of the central valley and down through the inland valleys of Southern California, largely because the terrain is less treacherous than the rocky coast.
Trains will travel 220 mph, reaching Los Angeles from San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes[2].
Proposition 1A — the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act — was passed by statewide popular vote on November 4, 2008. Earlier versions of this initiative were removed from the ballot in 2004 and 2006 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The total cost of the rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles is estimated to be $45 billion. Through Proposition 1A, California taxpayers will pay $19.4 billion ($9.95 principle plus $9.5 billion interest) over a period of 30 years, or $647 million per year.
The 2009 Stimulus Bill allocated a last-minute $8 billion to high speed rail. While the plan is to distribute that money nationally, a significant chunk could go to California, given that it has the only real pending project right now [8].
Intercity Travel in California
California had a more advanced and extensive rail network 100 years ago than it does today. In the 1880’s, an arm of the Southern Pacific line was extended from San Francisco southward to Los Angeles, and then to San Diego [3]. The California Southern line then linked San Diego with inland desert town of Barstow, the western terminus of the transcontinental Santa Fe railroad [4]. By the early twentieth century, rail had spread throughout the state, even to small towns in rural and mountainous areas.
Today, there are only two viable options for intercity travel in California: fly or drive. Both modes of travel increase traffic congestion and degrade already poor air quality in metropolitan areas and throughout the central valley. Hopping on a flight seems to be preferred option for most these days. It takes an hour to fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco (minus airport snafus) and 5 to 6 hours to drive the route (without traffic).
There is no direct route on Amtrak due to a large gap in rail service in central California: the southern “Surfliner” trains end on the central coast in San Luis Obispo, and the northern line begins far inland at Bakersfield. Why the gap? Amtrak California [5] notes that in some areas “operating railroads were unable or unwilling to come to an agreement with Amtrak for service provision”, while in other cases the physical terrain was too difficult for rail line construction. Amtrak passengers who hope to traverse the state must take a time-consuming bus detour to Bakersfield, something few would choose to do. Total travel time between L.A. and San Francisco is over 10 hours and requires two bus transfers. While both the southern and northern Amtrak lines function well on their own, the fact that California lacks rail service between its two largest cities illustrates the pathetic state of passenger rail in this country.
Why rail and why now?
- As California’s population continues to grow, highways will become increasingly gridlocked. An efficient alternative to driving is desperately needed.
- Powered by electricity, high speed trains are part of the state’s effort to mitigate global warming. It is hoped that the system will eventually use 100% renewable energy sources with little or no CO2 emissions [6]. High-speed trains will use only one-third of the energy of an airplane trip and one-fifth of an automobile trip[6].
- The project will promote development in urban centers, as each bullet train station is intended to also be a “multi-modal transportation hub” [6]. Each train stop should stimulate denser transit-oriented development, in contrast to the sprawling pattern that highways encourage.
- The bullet train will reduce the need for expanding airport and highway infrastructure. California freeways are already too wide and too extensive (minimum 8 lanes across) – how much more can freeways and their tributary networks expand before the entire state is one giant freeway? Because California airports are among the busiest in the nation, it would be helpful to reduce the number of short flights within the state.
- The project will increase ridership on existing light rail and subway lines that connect to the high speed rail line [7].
- It will improve neighborhoods around stations, especially the central city stations: “Once the bullet train started dropping passengers at the city's doorstep, the neighborhood around the station would instantly see new shops and restaurants as well as commercial and retail development” [7]. Travel depots will be elegant again, and will make urban areas more livable. The blighted areas around Union Station in Los Angeles, for example, may finally receive some attention.
Issues and Problems
Bond measures. Prop 1A was a bond measure, which means that the funds will be borrowed rather than acquired directly through a tax increase or budget adjustments. The state therefore must pay significant interest on the bond — $9.5 billion — nearly equal to the value of the bond itself. Total costs (principle plus interest) to taxpayers will be $19.4 billion.
What about Amtrak? There is an argument that the state should complete its Amtrak line before embarking upon a costly project for high speed rail. Ross B. Capon, the president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, notes that it would make sense to first revive our passenger rail system: “You’ve got to walk before you can run, and we’ve just been crawling up to now" [8].
Cost. Critics charge it will cost much more than forecast, but an article in the Los Angeles Times noted that “if we don't fund high-speed rail now, we will have to pay an even higher price, as the state's population continues to grow, to subsidize freeway and airport construction. The question is not whether we are going to fund transportation projects over the next two decades. The question is which ones, and when -- and whether we will have the foresight to understand that the benefits of high-speed rail are about not just convenience, mobility and air quality but also the health and character of our cities” [7].
Growth. Because each station will spur growth and development, sensitive agricultural or natural areas could potentially suffer when new housing and businesses emerge in previously undeveloped areas. Prop 1A advocates recognize this and have therefore already forbidden a station in the agricultural belt from Gilroy to Merced [6].
ALSO ON THE LIVABLE STREETS NETWORK
REFERENCES
Each source is referred to by the same number every time it is cited. Please keep citation style consistent.
[1] Election Results - Prop 1A. California Secretary of State. November 4, 2008.
[2] California Proposition 1A (2008). Ballotpedia.
[3] 1881 Timetable and Transcontinental Railroad Map. Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum
[4] California Southern Railroad. Wikipedia.
[5] History of Amtrak California. Amtrak California (a partnership between Amtrak and Caltrans).
[6] California High Speed Rail Authority.
[7] Prop 1A’s bullet train would speed L.A.’s growth. The Los Angeles Times. November 1, 2008.
[8] Slice of stimulus package will go to faster trains. The New York Times, February 20, 2009.
PICTURE REFERENCES
Pictures are cited in the order they appear above. Please keep citation style consistent.
[1] Simulation of bullet train at a new Transbay Terminal in SF. Image by NC3D Multimedia via the CA High Speed Rail Authority.
[2] Simulation of bullet train near the Altamont Pass in Northern California. Image by NC3D Multimedia via the CA High Speed Rail Authority.
FURTHER READING
- California High Speed Rail Authority
- Proposition 1A, Title and Summary. Voter Guide - California Secretary of State.
- Okuzumi, Margaret. High Speed Rail: A Necessity for California. California Progress Report. May 2007.
- California High Speed Rail Blog
KEYWORDS
high speed rail, bullet train,
