Posted on 04/08/2007 10:33:54 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO - Supporters of a $40 billion high-speed rail line in California are revitalizing their decade-long battle for a 700-mile route that could help relieve the state's jammed freeways.
The plan for the transit corridor has languished for years, unable to overcome weak political support and strong criticism of its hefty price tag.
But last week's record-breaking run by a French TGV train that hit 357 mph has revived interest in the route that could whisk passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California," said Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, one of several state lawmakers who traveled to France to witness the speed record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time, tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets," Ma said in a phone interview, shortly after riding on the record-breaking French train.
"I think Californians are frustrated with all that. High-speed rail, to me, is the solution."
The California High-Speed Rail Authority is set to hold public meetings in Los Angeles this month on a proposed Southern California route that promises 27-minute rides between L.A.'s Union Station and Palmdale.
California voters next year could be asked to vote on a bond measure that would provide about $10 billion to build a statewide high-speed rail system.
Still, the plan faces significant challenges.
"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle," said Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles.
"The entire huge cost of building the system would be paid for by the taxpayers of California. That's true of no other large-scale infrastucture. If we build another north-south highway, it would be paid for by gas tax and tolls. ... It makes no sense to me whatsoever from the taxpayer or traveler standpoint."
Poole believes the Rail Authority is being overly optimistic in projecting ridership of 100 million by 2030 and operating revenue of $1billion a year.
Californians, he said, prefer driving their cars regardless of whether traffic and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a reasonable price.
Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed slashing the Rail Authority's budget next year to just $1.2million - down more than $13million from this year's level.
Kicked off the ballot in 2004 because of the state's shaky economy, funding for the train was bumped off again in 2006 when lawmakers instead pushed for billions of dollars in bonds to fund freeway improvements.
Now, Schwarzenegger wants to postpone the ballot measure for a third time, instead proposing more borrowing for prisons, schools, courts and natural resources.
Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart said the state does not have the bonding capacity to include high-speed rail.
The proposal has a history of stops and starts after an initial private effort in the early 1980s was abandoned for lack of funding.
After riding high-speed rails overseas, former state Sen. Quentin Kopp in 1994 introduced a bill to establish a commission to study the state's need for the supercharged rail system. That gave birth to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The state agency has struggled for political support ever since.
The current route plan would zip passengers between San Diego and Sacramento at speeds up to 220 mph, with stops and extensions throughout the Inland Empire, Orange County, Los Angeles County, Central California and the Bay Area.
In Los Angeles County, stops would include Union Station, Sylmar, Burbank and Palmdale Airport.
A trip from Union Station to San Francisco is estimated to cost about $70, roughly 70percent of the air fare, said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the rail agency.
Unlike conventional trains that run on diesel, high-speed trains run on electricity that's continuously fed through overhead electrical lines and on specially built tracks. The state agency wants to run it off existing power grids.
Trains could carry up to 800 passengers. The agency is now honing in on where it wants to lay the tracks where an estimated 100 trains a day could run.
Attendance was sparse at two recent public meetings for the rail system at the Glendale Public Library. With a tight budget, the state agency has little money for publicity, so the few meeting attendees were mainly high-speed rail groupies.
"I can't wait for it to happen," said 73-year-old Vic Scheffer, who has followed the rail line's tribulations for the past four years. "Anything on wheels and rails, I'm excited about."
But critics contend the project is not a good investment for the state.
Norm King, director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal State San Bernardino, said there is no assurance the system would draw private investors, averting the need for taxpayer subsidies.
"If we want to transfer people who are now paying their own money to take a trip from L.A. to San Francisco to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, I guess it is a good thing," King said.
King said money would be better invested in highway projects because roads would create more congestion relief to residents than a high-speed rail could ever provide.
Kopp said it's a misconception to think that a high-speed rail would need subsidies. He said private money will come after investors see the reality of the project, which will arrive when voters approve a bond. He cited successful high-speed rails in Japan and France.
"They are money-makers," said Kopp, board chairman for the state agency. "They are run privately."
Pointing to China, Argentina, South Korea and Taiwan - countries where high-speed rails run or are being built - Kopp said America's resistance to the innovative system is keeping it behind the times with transportation.
State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, whose district would include the potential line's station in Palmdale, said the high-speed rail would boost economic development in the region, particularly the long-sought expansion of Palmdale Airport.
But he also warns the current plan may be too expensive and ambitious.
Runner said he would prefer to see shorter regional lines financed with bonds that are repaid with revenue from fares.
"I'm certainly supportive of the concept and the issue of high-speed rail," Runner said. "The hurdles we have before us right now are the expense, and I think we're adrift in terms of what the strategy is."
Ultimately, whether the plan can surmount current challenges will depend on the economy over the next two years and whether opponents and competitors emerge, said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based nonpartisan research organization.
"If there is no other competition, the economy is OK and a lot of money is spent educating the voters, then I think it has a chance," Stern said.
Why so much? I’m betting the European rail-lines didn’t cost that much.
This thing is huge.. if ever fully built as initially planned, it would be closer to 100 B.. but you didn’t hear that here. ;-)
I doubt much of the traffic we see in California is due to long-distance trips (LA-SF). Mostly local trips which this would not address.
As far as funding, there is no shortage of investment capital in California. If this were such a great idea, a private interest would have come along to do it.
“As far as funding, there is no shortage of investment capital in California. If this were such a great idea, a private interest would have come along to do it.”
Bingo! As with all the ideas that need taxpayer money, it means it doesn’t have a chance in economic hell of actually being economically viable. Just another feel-good idea that we all get to pay for.
Fortunately I’m moving back to Midwest. I enjoyed the weather, but screw the socialism, wealth redistribution and the eco-insanity-religeon.
It’s because of our road system - there’s way too many crossings that cannot be standard rail crossings. A train traveling at 350mph cannot have regular road-rail intersections. The first time we have some idiot get hit (read:pulverized) and the train derail and stop 5 miles somewhere off the track with tons of steel and body parts strewn all over the place that’d be the end of it. Well, the end of any economic chance of it it may have had. Not that it does, mind you.
If you ask me, any rail system to be really accepted would require that it move people and their cars. Like a ferry only on rails.
Drive onto a transport car in Sacramento and drive off in LA 2 hours or less later. People would love that (if it were affordable)
"They are money-makers," said Kopp, board chairman for the state agency. "They are run privately."
I'm pretty sure the French trains are government run and JR is "private" in name only-it still receives large subsidies from the Japanese government.
Don't count on getting a first class train. Also, if they built this monstrosity, you would still need to get to the train station, then from the other station to your final destination.
What they need to do is widen I5, US101 and CA99 to about ten lanes each.
Drive onto a transport car in Sacramento and drive off in LA 2 hours or less later. People would love that (if it were affordable)
Great idea, but it would be far more expensive. You'd probably get only one car, with one to four people, in the space you could seat a dozen people or more in a regular train.
Sounds like a terrorist's dream: crowded train stations, high speed trains carrying hundreds of infidels.
Nevertheless, it is still what people want.
You can carry whatever you can get into your car and you still have your car when you arrive at your destination.
HSR is practical in Europe where the cities are are quite dense and have extensive rail networks leading to the central stations, but California is spread out and doesn’t have much of a rail network. Fiona Ma should have looked at the whole system not one train. Also the French TGV is more and more expensive and there isn’t an alternative slow cheap train.
Well said. If there's one element that can be pointed to as far as "killing" public transportation, it's the public.
The descent from civility into barbarism has been consistently cheered and nutured by the left. Now they want to throw it onto a railway track so it can all happen at high speed with no escape.
I'll drive, thank you.
For that kind of money, I5 could probably be double decked for it's length.
Out of curiosity, how is that going to or getting from the airport?
What they need to do is widen I5, US101 and CA99 to about ten lanes each.
You think driving is the most efficient way of getting from LA to the Bay area?
Incorrect. High speed rail can't use existing rail networks (in California or in Europe) -- it needs new, dedicated rail networks build to special standards. You can send a train at 250mph over the same rails that freight trains ride.
Obviously, that should read CAN'T.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.