California high-speed rail dispute

I've been remiss in recent weeks not writing more about the California high-speed rail project. A $9.9-billion bond proposal is already on the Nov. 4 ballot, giving voters the chance to say whether they want the kind of ultra-modern and ultra-fast (220 mile per hour) trains that many other parts of the world have had for years.

Of course, there are issues. The first is cost. The Los Angeles-to-San Francisco leg is expected to cost at least $30 billion, meaning the bond really only gets engineering work started and perhaps a few segments of the line built. What it really does is it allows the California High-Speed Rail Authority to go out and seek federal funds and, more importantly, private dollars to invest in the line.

Among some of the controversies with the line is the route. Earlier this summer, the Authority certified its final environmental report on the route between the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area. There were two ways to get the train to the San Francisco Peninsula -- either from the south, through San Jose, or from the east, via Altamont Pass.

The Authority chose the southern route, saying it's more direct and practical. The trip between L.A. and S.F. would be faster, they argued, and improved commuter train service could serve the S.F. to Sacramento corridor.

Needless to say, a lot of people weren't happy. While high-speed rail in California is far from a reality, it's still something that many cities covet and they would rather be on the route than risk seeing it benefit other places.

So, on Friday, several groups filed suit, alleging the authority did a poor job in its environmental study that led to the route being chosen. Among the plaintiffs were the Planning and Conservation League, the California Rail Foundation, Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) and the cities of Atherton and Menlo Park -- which wanted the train to come into the San Francisco Peninsula from the east to help alleviate commuter traffic.

"They had no intention of doing a fair analysis," said David Schonbrunn, president of TRANSDEF. "These guys have been bound and determined ever since they came into existence to make San Jose the center of the northern part of the system."

In particular, he said that the authority has alienated many would-be supporters in the northern San Joaquin Valley. Cities such as Modesto, Stockton and Sacramento would not be on the main line between L.A. and S.F. -- instead they would be on a future L.A. to Sacramento leg, with emphasis on the word "future."

Dan Leavitt, the deputy director of the authority, said that the project still has heavy support among Californians and he defended the agency's choice of route. "We can and will fully defend that work," Leavitt told me Friday.

There has also been a concurrent effort in the Legislature to pass AB 3034, a bill that adds more oversight by the Legislature over how bond money would be spent. Language has also been preserved to protect the L.A. to S.F. route. That bill is pending in the Assembly.

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[Michael P. Bartolic]

Based on high-speed rail already in place worldwide, the only cost-effective and technically rational approach is that proposed by the CHSRA: standard-gauge, electrified, on new, dedicated right-of-way in the boondocks but utilizing existing urban corridors for reaching regional centers (e.g., LAUPT to Canyon Country via Saugus line, new trackage from there to Gilroy via Pacheco Pass, then existing double track up the Peninsula to SF). This is not rocket science or ahead of any curve -- it is proven by the success of Shikansen, ICE, TGV, and Chunnel trains.

The TGV is probably the most applicable model, as the population density in the French countryside is not so severe as Japan and distances are apt for comparison to much of California. But land prices in California being what they are and the rampant suburbanization along the 99 corridor Bakersfield-Sacramento make a true HSR route there very costly and politically difficult -- that is, all those cities want service, but all of the neighborhoods which compose them are NIMBY as everywhere else; plus if the west side of the Valley has some sensitive ecological issues the east side of the Valley has imho significantly more. Probably an ACELA level service -- i.e., not true HSR -- is all that would be possible up the 99 corridor in the next twenty years, and even that would only be possible by massive investment in what are now traffic-saturated freight railway routes.

Is the Pacheco Pass route the best? That's debatable, but only from a very subjective context. If HSR had been built twenty years ago -- when it ought to have been done -- then yes, swinging the route east to touch Fresno, then west again along the old Southern Pacific West Valley line routing to Tracy, thence thru Altamont Pass, Livermore, and across the Dumbarton Bridge to the Peninsula and SF might have been feasible. Unfortunately, growth and time have slammed that door closed. The best technical route purely to achieve the fastest transit LA center to SF is by way of Panoche Pass, but such a routing would not well serve as a means to build a core trunk permitting any later tie-in to a leg adjacent to I-5 to Sacramento and/or a branch to Fresno. Thus, by default, the Pacheco Pass route is undoubtedly the sanest, most pragmatic approach to designing a HSR system that could actually be built in the present circumstances.

Whatever one may think of Kopp, Diridon, or the other players with the CHSRA, the fact is LA's the Big Dog driving California's politics and economy, and the Bay Area is second only to that. They are intricately bound together, for good and ill: mitigating the transportation implosion impending between them is vital to having any chance of addressing state-wide transportation needs. Folks trying to throw logs in front of the path of HSR's potential to help California progress out of the stagnant end of the last century should can the conspiracy theories, and get on board with working to make what is doable the best it can be, rather than being whining obstructionists petulantly pursuing their own petty, personal vision of perfection.

[Simon]

The reason something like this takes so long and ends up so expensive is precisely because of all these lawsuits.

Sending the line on a straighter shot through a less developed area makes it more likely it can actually be built.

I do expect this thing to end up costing 60 or 70 billion dollars and I expect it to pay for that with a hundred years of vital infrastructure. For once we can actually be out ahead of our needs instead of hopelessly chasing them decades after the fact.

[BOB2]

The CHSRA is the only transportatioin organizatiion in the state more dysfunctional than MTA. The Senate rightly gutted the bill and tried to restore some balance to what was essentially the robbery of Southern California in the previous version. The CHSRA is the political fiefdom of Quentin Kopp, and is incompetent to design, build, or operate high speed rail.

Unfortunately SB 53 (Ducheny) which would create a Department of Rail, end the CHSRA, and put some accountablity in the State rail programs failed this year. Until there is fundamental reform and accountability, the CHSRA will continue to function as an organization to steer work to wired contractors , and most of the funds will be wasted.

[TechBro]

This issues makes me edgy for so many reasons. First off, there will undoubtedly bee concerns over cost overruns and mismanagement. I'll stipulate that point but also posit that is an issue of politicans soft-peadling the final costs due to their own political interests.

I am also edgy beacuse I know many short-sided folks will say "if it does not go through my city, it does not benefit me." Really? If a good chunk of cars that are normally headed to the same place as me eventually disappear from the roads, would I really not benefit? Doesn't paying for the Interstate Highway system benefit me even if I live in the rural US? Same argument.

I beleive that it comes down to a few points: 1) determine what is the best route for the core line, and clearly plan the spurs now; 2) take the environmental issues seriously; and 3) be upfront about the cost (but also quantify the benefit).

This could be awesome, but we have to bring everyone to the table and put all of our cards on that same table and work together.

[harry g.]

This project is a boondoggle. It has been a political football with San Jose and San Francisco managing to keep the ball in their possession.

They both want the project, regardless of the cost in dollars or damage to the environment.

Now the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) has joined other groups in filking a lawsuit to invalidate the EIR.

The voters must turn this project down in November. It will never only cost $45 billion, but will end up costing over $100 billion.

How can anyone vote for a project which has no business plan; on people like Kopp and Diridon saying approve the bond measure and we will stake our reputations on getting the project built.

Yea -- Diridon responsible for the San Jose light rail disaster, which went way over costs; which today is being subsidized by sales tax revenue in Santa Clara County and carry few passengers. Then there is Judge Kopp, who promoted BART to the SF airport. Again 2 times costs estimated and ridership now at about one fourth of was projected.

[Tommy]

* sigh *

What a grim future we have to look forward to, at the city, county and state level. It's really just sad when you think how many people are only concerned with, "How does this project benefit ME?" Our transit problems will never get solved as long as people refuse to work together. California is one of the best places to live in the world, but I doubt that'll still be true in 30 years.