High-speed rail to San Francisco by 2018?

Today's eyebrow-raiser of a story comes courtesy of the Daily Californian, the UC Berkeley student newspaper: The paper says that "state officials" -- it's not really specified who that is -- say high-speed trains could be running between Los Angeles and San Francisco as early as 2018. KCBS in the Bay Area has also quoted rail officials saying the system could be carrying 68 million passengers by 2020.

Not to be a grumpy bear on this -- I know there's a lot of people that want to see the trains up and running -- but I think the odds of the system running in a decade are long. First, there's the little issue of coming up with the $33 billion that the California High-Speed Rail Authority says the project will cost (and some people say that's a low-ball estimate). The bond passed by California voters earlier this month was only for $9.95 billion.

And then there's this: Look at how long it takes just to build a few miles of light rail. Take, for example, the Expo Line, which is planned to run from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, a distance of some 15 miles. Construction began in 2006 and the first 8.6 miles may be done by 2010, with the remainder by 2015. That's nine years to build 15 miles of light rail, versus a decade to build 400-plus miles of 220 mph rail.

Do you really think high-speed rail can happen that quickly? Making big promises is a good way to get the public excited. It's also a good way to make them cynical when those promises fail to materialize.

UPDATE, 5:30 p.m.: Robert Cruickshank, at his California High Speed Rail blog, says the 2018 date comes from the California High Speed Rail Authority's business plan. He also has several criticisms of this post.

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[Damien Goodmon]

How we plan, how we build, how we're financed and how long it takes to complete projects are interrelated.

And as I recall there are still some political and environmental protection concerns in the Central Valley/NorCal.

Additionally, much of the HSR involves constructing grade separated structures where currently operational at-grade frequently running freight/Metrolink ROWs. The same utility relocation, time schedules, traffic mitigation measures and construction time limitations that apply to our light rail construction (a la Eastside Extension and Expo) will apply to HSR.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I just doubt it, given the current bureaucratic constrains and political realities. And I don't see a movement toward reforming either of those - the root of our problems.

[Jay Tulock]

Ya'll are dremain'. The route is chosen Damon? Hey, I could draw broad lines on a map and tell both sides that I might be on the other route for $80 million bucks myself. Few political battles? You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until the land takings begin. This isn't the 1950's and people aren't going to put up with eminent domain for high speed rail like they did for the interstates. I swear I leave this state for a few years and I return and you've all lost your grip on reality because you just want to see it in your lifetimes. Mr. Hymon, you be the only one here with their head screwed on straight. Don't let the "reality deniers" and their obnoxious, egotistical idealism derail your clear vision of what is. I'm betting 2023 before a usable section of HSR goes anywhere, and 2041 before LA is linked to San Francisco. Between the two, there will be a MAJOR political upheaval and reorganization when the voters and polticians can no longer deny what they've done.

[Dan W.]

I hope that some of the money that can be used to hook in connecting service can be used to fast track the Downtown Regional Connector.

[Dana Gabbard]

I am mildly hopeful, as someone who has been tracking this project for over a decade. In fact the current talk of stimulus and infrastructure means this could be a strong candidate for funding on the basis of helping the economy. And that prospect may jumpstart the talks with private investors. There are challenges ahead, some a bit daunting, but I am sure a line will be built. Until the bonds passed that was not looking too likely.

[Damon Tordini]

The funding issue could clearly stall things, but if the rest of the money can be secured I see no reason why i couldn't be done by 2018.

A large part of the design process is done. Once its completed, we can start laying track all over the state and ramp this up fast. The route has been mostly chosen (its on the site), so there should be minimal political battles.

[Robert Cruickshank]

The 2018 date is based on numerous studies of the California High Speed Rail Authority (likely the "state officials" that the Daily Cal was referring to) which have indicated an 8-year timeline from groundbreaking to completion of the SF-LA route. These studies, including the recent business plan and the EIR, can be found at the Authority's website, which one would assume Steve Hymon would have been at least passingly familiar with:

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

[David Galvan]

I think 10 years is reasonable.

If we want to compare something on the short time side of things, the First Transcontinental Railroad in the U.S. (which went from Iowa to Sacramento) started construction in 1862 and was completed in 1869. 7 years for a much greater distance.
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/uprr-chr.shtml

I don't think you can really compare construction time of a light rail through a dense urban area and construction of track for a high speed train across much farther distances. Each construction project has its own unique issues and obstacles to overcome, which depend on the companies actually doing the work, the people opposing and supporting the project squawking at their public officials, the ownership of the land you are building on or near, environmental concerns etc.

As for CA HSR, with the talk that's been going on by Obama and Pelosi about setting up an infrastructure stimulus package ala WPA, and the recent bill introduced in the Senate by Kerry to get funding for HSR systems across the U.S., I foresee this project getting fast-tracked. And if it is fast-tracked, combined with unforeseen delays, I expect that 10 years is about right.

[Heffer]

Got to second Roberto's comments. There's a big difference when running a line thru cities. Lot of politics and people debating where the line runs thru.

Building a rail thru CA's deserts shouldn't be as difficult.

[jeremy]

money. the problem with the 15 miles of mta building is that we have a small budget to get the thing done with.

the larger, project could get done even quicker then the expo provided there is enough interest and greenbacks to get it done in that time.

instead of paying one construction team to build the whole line[expo] you could fund several teams with only... 50 milies to build each. and its not that big of a deal anymore

[Roberto Ayala]

The 15 miles you specify run through and under city streets and through one of Los Angeles' densest areas, which explain the long construction times. The high-speed rail line will mostly run through California's Central Valley.

[Kirk]

The French opened their first line 5 years after the system was funded. Perhaps 2018 isn't so far fetched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV