REGION: High-speed rail finally reaches ballot
Critics say system wouldn't stay within costs or live up to travel times
By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | ∞
California's nearly $10 billion high-speed rail bond didn't move to the ballot fast.
It was supposed to go to voters in 2004. But it was delayed ---- twice. Finally, California voters will see it Nov. 4.
Through Proposition 1A, Californians will be asked to authorize selling bonds to raise a $9 billion down payment for a proposed $54 billion, 700-mile statewide passenger rail system linking the state's major urban areas with trains traveling as fast as 220 mph.
Proponents tout the train as a crucial, forward-looking public works project that would speed up travel throughout the state and clean up the environment.
Critics say it would run over budget, never be completed, and would not even run on time.
In San Diego County, the train is being touted as a way to relieve commuter congestion and a tool for wringing more capacity out of tiny Lindbergh Field.
The bonds also would raise $950 million for improvements to existing railroads, such as the one on the North County coast that is part of the nation's second-busiest passenger-train corridor.
The total cost of the bonds would come to $19.4 billion, factoring in the $9.5 billion interest cost, according to California's legislative analyst. It would cost in excess of $1 billion a year to operate the system.
San Diego and Riverside counties both figure prominently in the high-speed rail system, as the line would run through Temecula/Murrieta, Escondido and University City on the way to downtown San Diego, with a possible connection at Lindbergh Field.
However, the $9 billion represents a fraction of what is needed to build the system's $33 billion first phase, the section between Anaheim and San Francisco. Thanks to passage of a law last summer, the bond money may be used anywhere in the state.
Still, there is sharp disagreement over whether any of the down payment will make its way to San Diego and Riverside counties, which are in the second phase.
Escondido Mayor Lori Pfeiler, a longtime project supporter, said San Diego and Riverside counties can make a strong case for grabbing a share of bond proceeds because projections show the local line would attract more passengers than any other in the state.
And, Pfeiler said, Temecula-Murrieta is one of the fastest-growing places in the state with a huge need for travel options that compete favorably with the car.
But Ron Roberts, a Temecula councilman and board chairman of the six-county Metrolink commuter rail system, said the project is so expensive and the region is so far down the line in terms of priority that money may never flow beyond Los Angeles.
"I know, in my lifetime, I'm not going to see the second phase," said Roberts, 68. "And I doubt very much that anyone else will see the second phase."
Project backers counter that the state bond will be enough to get the project started and put it on a path to completion.
Backers say the bond is meant only to generate seed money and that federal grants and private investment dollars will provide the rest needed for the first phase.
And they say profits from the first phase would provide the cash for extending the line east to Riverside County and south to San Diego County.
Profit and lost opportunity
Wendell Cox, a prominent rail critic in St. Louis who analyzed the California project for the Reason Foundation, a free-market think tank in Los Angeles, suggests the system won't make any profit and, rather, will run a deficit that would require annual subsidies from the state budget.
"What you have at the High Speed Rail Authority is a bunch of cheerleaders," Cox said of the state agency that planned the rail venture. "Anybody who thinks the high-speed rail system would be profitable must think that subprime loans could be profitable, too."
Quentin Kopp, a retired judge who is the authority's chairman, disagreed,
"That is contradicted by the fact that in every single country, 10 other countries, these systems have operated with operating revenue exceeding expenses," Kopp said. "And we fully expect ours to do the same."
Whatever the case, John Chalker, a California Transportation Commission member from San Diego who supports the project, said the ballot proposition will find the road to passage bumpy because of the economy.
"Clearly, Main Street is now feeling the impact of the financial crisis," Chalker said. "And that is going to have an impact on voters' decisions."
Still, as far as Solana Beach Councilman Joe Kellejian is concerned, the decision that voters make Nov. 4 could very well determine whether the project is built.
"It may be an opportunity lost if the folks in the state of California don't approve Prop. 1A," Kellejian said.
It is an opportunity to build a system that works much like the speedy rail systems in Japan and Europe, proponents say.
If built, riders could board in San Diego and reach Los Angeles in a little more than an hour.
"We're always wringing our hands about where to site another airport, and about traffic," said Lynn Schenk, a High Speed Rail Authority board member from San Diego who served as chief of staff for former Gov. Gray Davis. "We have a river of red lights in each direction on every freeway."
Pfeiler said this is an opportunity to relieve packed freeways and airports without building new ones.
"If we can't invest billions in a new airport somewhere, we better relieve pressure where we can," she said, noting residents could take the train instead of a commuter plane to Los Angeles International Airport to catch an international flight.
But the amount of relief depends on the number of riders, and there is dispute over how many there would be.
The authority projects the number would reach a minimum of 65 million riders a year by 2030 and as many as 96 million.
The report by Cox and Joseph Vranich, an author of books on trains, said the state would attract one-third as many riders.
"They have made absolutely absurd, if not insane, ridership projections," Cox said.
He said the projections are inflated in part because the authority cannot deliver its advertised travel times.
Cox said, for example, that it would take three hours and 40 minutes to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco instead of an hour less, as the authority says.
And he said the cost ---- in 2008 dollars ---- will reach $65 billion to $81 billion, not $54 million.
Schenk said the authority stands by its numbers, which are the result of years of detailed research.
And she said she is confident the project will be built ---- everywhere in the state.
"I believe that I am going to ride on that high-speed rail system," said Schenk, who is 63. "I may be pushed on in a wheelchair, but I am going to ride it."
Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Derek wrote on Oct 6, 2008 2:16 PM:With the stock market collapsing, the jobs this project brings be very good for our economy, just like the two bay bridges in San Francisco, the Hoover Dam, and the Shasta Dam, which were built during the Great Depression. They say every dollar invested in mass transit brings two (or more, depending on the study) dollars in economic returns.
And I for one will welcome not having to give so much money to the oil companies and overseas oil-producing countries, instead keeping it in our local economy.
Les wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:20 PM:Derek is dreaming if he thinks the state will see 2 dollars returned for every dollar spent. We are already 16 billion in debt. We borrowed against next year’s tax receipts to fund this year so none of the teacher’s union members was affected. Next year we will have to borrow even more money, some to satiate the teacher’s union, some to make up for the normal shortfall, some to pay for this year’s shortfall , and some to make up for the reduction in revenue due to the economy. Given our already broke state, does anyone really think indebting California for 54 billion dollars now is a good idea?
Derek wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:31 PM:Les, you'll be happy to know that this would only indebt California for $9.95 billion, not $54 billion. So it's 5 1/2 times a better deal than you thought!
Taxpayer wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:53 PM:Funny how we throw out the word "billion" these days.
bat1 wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:00 PM:If this was such a money maker, don't you think someone in private industry would have built it a long time ago. It's another pork fat project. Don't let anyone at NCTD have anything to do with it or the cost will be 100 times more.
Derek wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:26 PM:bat1, high speed rail will compete with driving, which we've done such a thorough job of socializing that Marx would be proud of us. Until we get back to basic free market principles, we can't expect the private industry to pick up the tab on infrastructure projects like this, at least not until we've shown a commitment. Which is exactly what the $9.95 billion bond is for. The rest of the cost of the high speed rail system will be picked up by private investors.
Dave wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:06 PM:With Arnold asking the federal gov for 7 billion so California can keep running, this is a foolish time for this type of investment.
Driving vs Rail vs INTERNET wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:57 PM:So the solution to our 20th century problem of moving people to where they sit in cubicles and meeting rooms and answer phones and use computers is a 19th century idea primarily useful, these days, for carrying bulk freight?
NO! The solution is not to move the people, but rather to distribute the facilities and make teleworking and remote meetings a reality. IE: Real high speed Internet for everyone (and that means at least 100Mbps to every home, and preferably 1Gbps).
Especially given that the fundamental enabling technologies are made here, in CA, as opposed to high-speed trains, which are made in France and Germany.
P.S. A 2:1 ROI wouldn't make anyone who knows anything about high risk capital do anything except yawn.
Vista Resident wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:36 AM:Three and a half hours from LA to SF sounds great to me.... I would definitely ride it. Any idea how much the fare would be for a round trip?
Mike wrote on Oct 7, 2008 3:45 AM:My state will never have high-speed rail unless California builds it first. Please build this project, no one will EVER ask themselves "why did we create this?" only "why don't we build more?".
hahahaahah wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:29 AM:Ca is in an economic death sprial with the Dems spending with both hands.. Sure , get a 20 billion bond issues spend , spend , spend... you'll never have to pay it back anyway... hahahahaa
When the rich leave ca.you can have a mexican dust bowl.
hahahahaa.
Walt wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:01 AM:Good idea if it is NON STOP ONLY HSR; San Diego, LAX, (not Anaheim), and ONE terminal in the San Fran area. Also fares meet full operating plus amortized capital expenses. But note already Mayor Pfeiler wants it to be for commuting to Temecula, and pretty soon with more and more of such it becomes just another slightly faster rail net that few can use. Like mass transit we now have that Karl Marx would love because taxpayers pay all capital costs and most of operating cost so less than 2% get nearly free rides.
Foolish wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:06 AM:idea under present circumstances. Vote no on ALL bonds. There is no money and the property owner taxpayer just doesn't have it. Remember to vote NO on Prop "T".
Richard wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:16 AM:San Diego-Los Angeles via Temecula and Riverside??? What a waste of time. If a direct route is not built, we shouldnt waste our tax dollars on this! To travel over 100 miles out of the way on a San Diego to LA trip will still take longer than getting on the Amtrak trains. What a waste of money. Vote NO!
Mazz wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:45 AM:NCTD can't even get the regular rail lines and busses running correctly, neither can they fund them properly. They go after routes with a hatchet.
I vote NO on a tax increase. Get rid of our $16 Bil deficit, and we'll talk.
Vote NO wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:42 AM:Let's see the State may have to borrow $7 billion to make day to day payouts because of the credit crunch. The State needs to invest $8 billion in the prison health care system directed by a Federal Judge. This money was given to the guards by Gov Gumby for campaign donations. Illegals are costing us $11 billion a year so let's go try to raise money for a train. Makes sense to somebody I guess???
local osider wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:48 AM:ahead of the rest of the country, but behind the rest of the western world..this project is an absolute must and anyone who thinks this could be picked up by the private sector still believes we have a free market economy...we are officially socialists ...socialism for the rich that is..the poor are still capitalized on so dont worry to much my republican friends
Spokker wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:41 AM:"If a direct route is not built, we shouldnt waste our tax dollars on this!"
A direct route will never be built because of the NIMBYs in San Clemente. Also, the beachfront geography is a bit more difficult to deal with than going inland. San Juan Capistrano is also a bottleneck.
With the inland configuration Riverside and Ontario Airport get served.
An hour and 18 minutes from San Diego to LA will still be faster than the Surfliner, which is currently doing 2 hours and 53 minutes.
Spokker wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:43 AM:"So the solution to our 20th century problem of moving people to where they sit in cubicles and meeting rooms and answer phones and use computers is a 19th century idea primarily useful, these days, for carrying bulk freight?"
The idea of high speed rail is nothing but 21st century technology. Telecommuting is nice and all, but it will never replace dealing with real people face to face. People still want to travel.
Richard wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:25 PM:There is a direct route between San Diego and LA. It's called interstate 5. The long way around proposes going down interstate 15. Vote No unless the direct route is approved. The trip could be well under an hour.
Michael wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:01 PM:Richard, the train is being routed up I-15 instead of I-5 because it can go through the huge population centers east of LA, and because of environmental/property value/aesthetic/cost objection along the coast.
The project is currently projected at $45 billion, not $54 as the article claims. Even at that price, it is half the cost of building airports and freeway lanes to meet the same demand, options that will have a huge environmental impact. Also, this project is said to create 45,000 permanent jobs in San Diego county according to a local recent study. There is no reason to not be in support of this project.
Jaque wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:14 PM:Bichard, go to Europe. Go anywhere, anytime, on time via the rail. The USA is long long LONG overdue mass transit via rail.
Yes on 1A wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:44 PM:Funny how people are so worried about the state deficit that they won't approve of things they know will continue to grow the California economy directly and indirectly. Like another post said, this is a drop in the bucket compared to all the money spent on roads. Can we/should we build in 50 lane highway? That's the other option.
it will never happen wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:54 PM:not in my lifetime
Stephen wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:41 PM:The HSR is a good idea. We need to reduce the amount of traffic on the freeways. I mean come on, why do they call 4-6 p.m. rush hour. Nothing moves. As for Lindberg Field, I have a suggestion. Why don't we ask the Marines to move their recruitment depot to Camp Pendleton or Miramar. This would allow the San Diego International airport to expand.
Train to Nowhere wrote on Oct 8, 2008 6:27 AM:It's time to put this to rest once and for all. We should vote no until they come up with a more environmentally sensitive plan. People in the cities just south of San Francisco don't want this. This is a "Train to Nowhere"
You people are funny wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:46 AM:First, HSR will do nothing to help Lindbergh - flyign to LA will always be faster because HSR doesn't go to LAX which is where these people are heading. Second, MCRD will do nothing to help Lindbergh; there will never be a second runway at Lindbergh because of terrain and homes off the end of such a runway. The only solution is a new airport. Pick a spot, and build it. As for HSR... $81 billion and only $10 billion from taxpayers? Right. Just wait till they come asking for more when private investment doesn't come. Tryign to sell an $81 billion idea on a $10 billion bond measure. If they had to sell this with its real boondogle price tag, it woudln't even be on the ballot.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement