Photo Courtesy NC3D

By Tim Jue / Beat Staff Writer

For almost five years now, the proposition that would have given the jump start towards constructing a high speed rail line connecting Northern and Southern California was treated like an ugly duckling at the State Capital.

It was ignored by politicians as being a prohibitively expensive investment, delayed from appearing on the ballot by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in favor of other infrastructure bonds he was pushing, and almost dismissed after the state commission responsible for the project was starved of precious public funding needed to keep the project on the right track.

Just read this article I wrote in March 2007 for another news outlet:

High-Speed rail system promises three-hour trip between San Francisco
and Los Angeles

Funding woes keep project from becoming reality in near future

By Timothy Jue

Traveling at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour, a planned California
high-speed rail system linking Northern and Southern California could allow passengers to enjoy breakfast in San Francisco and arrive in Los Angeles in time for lunch, according to backers of the project.

But when someone would actually be able to hop on the first train is still anybody’s guess.

Marred by growing costs and a lackluster desire from lawmakers to
approve spending for the project, the state group directing the
effort to make the trains become reality fears that unless California
legislature allocates more money to the group, keeping the rail
project on the right track will become increasingly difficult.

“When the governor’s budget came out in January, we had asked for
$103 million to continue the work that we started … and start
right-of-way acquisition,” said Carrie Pourvahidi, deputy director
of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. “But it had only
$1.2 million in it — enough to keep the office open — so we’re
back to square one in terms of funding from the administration.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fully funded the authority’s
$14.3 million request during the 2005-2006 fiscal year, has said
he recognizes the benefits of a high-speed train system. However,
combined with deteriorating California roadways and other
transportation woes, the train project, estimated to cost between
$33 billion and $37 billion to build, has been placed on the
backburner.

“It’s a matter of timing,” said Sabrina Lockheart, spokesperson
for Schwarzenegger. “The governor believes there is promise in
high-speed rail, but the state has a lot of infrastructure needs.”

Pretty grim read, right? But nearly a year and a half later, the momentum to construct this rail system is stronger than ever, especially now that the people of California will finally get a say on whether to build this train system.

Photo Courtesy NC3D

On Election Day next month, voters will vote on Proposition 1A – the measure that would allocate $10 billion towards financing the start of constructing the high speed rail network in California. The money would be used to initially acquire right-of-way, and commence laying out the foundation needed to support what would be the largest (and most ambitious) public works project in the state’shistory.

“Its a project that involves building 800 miles of track, signals, everything that’s needed for a state of the art high speed train to travel to all major metropolitan areas of California,” High Speed Rail Commission chief Mehdi Morshed says in an online interview. “It’s not anything revolutionary. It’s been around for 40 years. It’s proven to be the cleanest, safest and most comfortable mode of transportation. When you consider all of those, it’s a no brainer, why would anyone want any other way?”

Certainly there’s the romanticism associated with having speedy trains whisk you from city center to city center. So much so that the state’s high speed rail authority solicited a Porland, Ore.-based 3D design firm to produce stunning visualizations of the proposed high speed rail system. There are 10-minute promotional videos out, conceptualizations of San Francisco’s new Transbay Center with the electric trains. San Jose, Fresno and through Burbank too. The dream is there, but what about public support?

Photo Courtesy NC3D

Given this summer’s skyrocketing of the price of a gallon of gasoline and unprecedented turmoil in the American airline industry, there might be enough of it to give the proposition enough momentum to pass. Backers of the rail project say that now is the right time to approve the monies needed to build what’s being described as a environmentally friendly and economical rapid transit system that solidly invests in the state’s ailing transportation infrastructure.

Rod Diridon, a member of the High Speed Rail Authority told the San Francisco Chronicle last month:

“This is our chance. We have a perfect storm of factors … the high and higher-in-the-future gas prices, the growing concern for global warming, the terrible condition of our highways, and compounding that is the congestion coming in and out of our metro areas. Those four factors make a perfect case for high-speed rail.”

The electric trains would initially, if built, connect the San Francisco Bay Area with Metropolitan Downtown Los Angeles in under 3 hours time. The route would navigate a straight path down the Central Valley serving communities in the region that other than via private automobile, have been historically isolated from the rest of the state. High speed rail would prvide a crucial link to the major urban/ cultural centers to the north  and south. The route would then snake its way over to Palmdale and into the Los Angeles valley where it would connect with Southern California Metrolink trains. The planned terminal in LA: Union Station, the nexus point for other local rail systems in Southern California. A trip from SF to LA would cost $55, backers say.

Photo Courtesy NC3D

Additional legs would be added to the system serving the Sacramento Valley, the Inland Empire in Southern California and San Diego. Trains would travel at speeds of up to 220-miles per hour in some areas. In urbanized areas such as the San Francisco approach, trains would slow down considerably.

For the most part, 2008 has been a long anticipated year for supporters of Prop. 1A. Politicians and environmental groups have lined up to support the project -the Sierra Club, Central Valley lawmakers and transit advocates have all given enthusiasitc thumbs up to Prop. 1A.

Cities, like San Francisco, are banking on high speed rail to anchor major transit projects. The new Transbay Center (aka the Grand Central Station of the west) is expecting High Speed trains to terminate at the station – a critical component for a regional transit center that’s been decades in the making.

Photo Courtesy NC3D

Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who would not throw his influential weight behind the train system in 2007 jumped on-board this year.

“Our rail system in America is so old, we’re driving the same speed as 100 years ago, the same system as 100 years ago,” Schwarzenegger told the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Tuesday. “If we want mass transportation, we should modernize those things, we should do what other countries do and we should do the same thing in this country. We should show leadership in this state and show the country how to do it.”

In the same interview, Schwarzenegger warned that despite the poor economy and the state’s seemingly annual budget crunch – major infrastructure projects, like high speed rail, should not be deferred.

“Even if you make a decision today, it would take 20 years to build those projects,” the Governor said. “So 20 years from now, you can’t go and look back and say ‘I think they had a little budget problem and that’s why they decided not to build [it].”

But can we stomach the costs of this project? Opponents of the plan say that we might not even know what the true pricetag could end up being.

Writing in the Orange County Register, the Reason Foundation’s Vice President of Research Adrian Moore says that an independent analysis by his group shows a significantly deflated cost for building and maintaining the system.

Photo Courtesy NC3D

“Let’s just say “pig in a poke” doesn’t begin to cover it,” Moore writes. “The rail plan is a financial boondoggle. Between 1999 and 2008 the official estimated cost of just part of the system (Los Angeles to San Francisco) rose from $30.3 billion to $45.4 billion (in 2006 dollars). Remember, the big price increases come when construction actually starts, so our estimate suggests the final price tag could top $75 or $80 billion.”

His group is against the system because of the fear that this project could become expensive, very quickly. That, coupled with a bad economy, a crowded ballot and state budget woes has supporters railing up last minute statistics to show that building the train system would actually be beneficial for the state.

“Too many Californians, especially in the media, are stuck in obsolete late 20th century thinking that a recession is a time to cut back on government spending, that now would not be a good time to authorize bonds and construction of high speed rail,” a recent post on the California High Speed Rail Blog said. “HSR is estimated to create around 160,000 jobs in the short and medium term,” A recent study suggested San Diego alone would see 45,000 jobs. Long-term job creation estimates have been around 450,000 for the entire state.”

But the question still stands: are Californians ready to invest in high speed rail for the state?

We’ll find out come Nov. 4.

All photographs in this story courtesy NC3D.

Online Resources:

California High Speed Rail Authority

Yes on Prop 1A

KQED Quest Program: California High Speed Rail

Reason Foundation Study on High Speed Rail