August/September 2008 (Volume 34, Number 1)

Next Stop on the Line for High-Speed Rail: November 4 Ballot

By Leslie Stewart

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has approved the alignment and environmental documents for the Bay Area segment of the proposed high-speed rail system. The Authority’s July 9 actions were the final steps in determining the route between San Francisco and Los Angeles. High-speed trains, which can run up to 220 miles per hour, could travel between the two metropolitan areas in less than three hours and are projected to be an attractive alternative to air travel within the state.

The route between the Central Valley and the Bay Area has been controversial. Two primary alternatives, Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass, were considered. Supporters of the Altamont Pass route argued that it would serve the largest population in the Bay Area and supplement existing train travel between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. However, the Authority initially selected Pacheco Pass because, according to Mehdi Morshed, Executive Director of CHSRA, “Altamont required a three-way split to serve all three major Bay Area cities, which is operationally extremely undesirable — it cuts the system capacity by about half to do that.” In addition, serving San Francisco with trains from the Altamont route would require a new transbay crossing.

At the urging of Altamont supporters, the Authority agreed to a more detailed comparison of the two routes. The additional analysis made it clear that environmental impacts associated with a transbay crossing, including impacts on the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge, were a major concern. Also, Morshed said, “All the communities in the Altamont Pass came to the conclusion that they didn’t want high-speed rail through their communities.”

The Authority chose an alignment through Pacheco Pass that will serve San Jose, make several Peninsula stops along the Caltrain route, and end at the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. The Bay Area segment can now move to project-specific analysis, which is already underway on other segments of the route that were approved by the Authority in November 2005.

Controversy will continue for the high-speed rail system. After postponements in 2004 and 2006, a $10 billion bond measure to fund the project will be on the November ballot as Proposition 1.

Critics of high-speed rail call it a boondoggle, predicting higher construction costs. Fares are expected to provide the needed financial support for operation and expansion of the system but critics question the projected fares and ridership. According to the website for Derail, a public interest group, “117 million passengers [annually] would require that every man, woman and child in California ride the train at least three times per year.” Furthermore, Union Pacific Railroad has announced it will not share its right-of-way with the high-speed system, which could raise costs for land acquisition.

Morshed insisted that the project has never depended on Union Pacific right-of-way availability. “We want to be in the railroad corridor, because it minimizes the environmental impact on the community, whether we are in or adjacent to the right-of-way. When we get to the project level we will start looking at whose land is it, and is it available,” he said.

Supporters such as Robert Cruikshank, author of the California High-Speed Rail Blog, acknowledge that the Union Pacific refusal may create problems. “If the CHSRA has to abandon the [right-of-way]-sharing plan, then they’ll need to completely redo the environmental impact reports, which could add three to five years to the construction time,” wrote Cruikshank. However, supporters say that high gas prices make high-speed rail more important than when it was first proposed. As air fares and driving costs rise, a train system that runs on electricity could be a very competitive alternative and also reduce energy use and air pollution. “Nobody is discussing the cost of not building high-speed rail,” noted Cruikshank.

Full funding for the high-speed rail system is dependent on first passing the bond measure. The Authority plans on funding from the state bonds, federal transportation funds, and private investors. As Cruikshank put it, “This is a chicken-and-egg problem — how can CHSRA get federal and private commitments unless we’ve staked our $10 billion?” Opponents argue that it is likely that Californians will still have to bail out the system in the future.