Great article on high-speed rail in California

Plans for state high-speed rail gain steam : State : Ventura County Star

Plans for state high-speed rail gain steam
Federal stimulus funds may aid $40 billion, 800-mile project

By Timm Herdt (Contact)
Monday, March 23, 2009

California’s high-speed rail would take travelers from Los Angeles to San Francisco at speeds of more than 200 mph.


California’s high-speed rail would take travelers from Los Angeles to San Francisco at speeds of more than 200 mph.


SACRAMENTO — The concept of a high-speed train that would zip travelers from Los Angeles to San Francisco at speeds greater than 200 mph — a big idea that a year ago seemed to be on a slow boat to nowhere — has been catapulted into the realm of the possible by the inclusion of $8 billion in funding for high-speed rail in the federal stimulus package.

That one-time boost in federal funding, coupled with President Barack Obama’s budget request for $1 billion annually for the next five years for high-speed rail, puts California on the brink of a potential new era in rail travel.

“The role of both high-speed and conventional rail as part of the state’s transportation system is about to be changed dramatically,” Caltrans Director Will Kempton told a Senate committee last week.

Because California voters approved a $10 billion rail bond measure in the fall, Kempton said the state is poised to take maximum advantage of the sudden and unexpected windfall of federal funding.

“We’re clearly ahead of many states when it comes to high-speed rail,” Kempton said. “We believe California will be a major recipient.”

Rail advocates across the country share that view.

Paul Weinstein of the Washington, D.C.-based Progressive Policy Institute has long advocated for federal investment in the kinds of high-speed rail systems that have been in place in Europe and Japan for more than a generation. He believes that the decision to include $8 billion for high-speed rail as part of stimulus package, put in at the insistence of the Obama administration, creates a near-term opportunity for whatever system in the country is poised to act first — and that the advantage will go to California.

“The window is in the next five years,” Weinstein said. “That’s when the money is there. The time is now. California’s already out front.”

Weinstein says the administration sees high-speed rail as “a legacy project” — something that historians will be able to point to as tangible evidence that the recession-inspired burst in federal spending created lasting benefits to society, much as have the dams built under the New Deal.

While the effort to launch the sleek trains that would operate on dedicated steel tracks has been infused with a sudden sense of possibility, there are ample obstacles ahead to realizing this California dream. Among them: intense competition from both other states and existing intercity rail systems within California, and lingering criticism over the legitimacy of the state’s plans.

Because the stimulus plan defines “high-speed” as trains capable of traveling at least 110 mph, more traditional rail systems in the Northeast and Midwest might be able to qualify for some of the funding — as might commuter systems in California.

“Some trains in Southern California corridors are pushing 110 mph,” said Darren Kettle, executive director of the Ventura County Transportation Commission. “Some of my peers in Southern California are looking at that stimulus money to improve the Los Angeles-to-San Diego line and get that up to 110 mph.”

In addition to having to fight off competition, high-speed rail advocates in California will have to deal with critics who say the California High-Speed Rail Authority, an agency with just 5.5 full-time employees, isn’t ready for prime time — let alone handling billions in state and federal funds.

Joseph Vranich of Irvine, a rail expert and high-speed train advocate who wrote the 1991 book “Supertrain,” is a vocal critic of the authority.

He says its projections of ridership are way too high and its projections of costs are way too low.

“We run the risk of spending billions of dollars and never seeing it completed,” he said.

Vranich also says that the California plan is not nearly as advanced as state officials assert. He notes that Union Pacific has told state officials it has no intent of selling parts of its right-of-way to accommodate the high-speed tracks and that some of the rights of way originally planned along freeway corridors have by now been lost to highway expansion projects.

In addition, he notes that the authority is just beginning to encounter local opposition as communities discover how disruptive the tracks through their cities will be. Just last week, Palo Alto officials complained about the authority’s “Berlin Wall” approach that would erect a 20-foot high concrete platform through their city on which the rails would be mounted. Because of the high speeds, the trains cannot run at street level through urban areas.

Officials with the Rail Authority acknowledge their plans are not as refined as they’d like, but say those deficiencies will be addressed once they receive bond funding to contract for additional engineering and consulting services from other experts.

That high-speed rail in California could become such a national focal point is a dizzying development for the High-Speed Rail Authority, an agency that was created in 1996 and has struggled ever since just to maintain its existence.

Former Gov. Gray Davis once dismissed the idea as a “Buck Rogers scheme” and the agency has had to beg the Legislature for funding year after year. On top of that, the bond act that was originally scheduled for the 2004 ballot was postponed twice, to 2006 and again to 2008 — and barely withstood an effort by some lawmakers last summer to put it off once more until 2010.

Once it finally made it to the ballot, however, voters embraced the idea, agreeing to take on $10 billion in debt to begin financing the estimated $40 billion-plus cost of building the 800-mile project. The measure was approved 53 percent to 47 percent.

The bond measure dedicated $9 billion for high-speed rail and an additional $1 billion for intercity rail systems.

The authority’s financial plan calls for financing the first $33 billion phase of the project (from Anaheim to San Francisco) with the $9 billion in state funding, coupled with up to $16 billion in federal funds, up to $3 billion from regional transportation agencies and up to $7.5 billion in private financing.

If carried out, it would become the largest single construction project in U.S. history.

Decisions on how to parcel out the federal funding will be made rather quickly.

Federal authorities must complete a strategic plan for use of the rail money by April 18 and issue guidelines for bids from states by June, Kempton said. Projects awarded federal funds must obligate the funds by Sept. 30, 2012, and spend the money by Sept. 30, 2015.

Kempton said he hopes California officials can present federal officials with a unified statewide plan that includes requests for funding for both high-speed rail and intercity rail service.

Officials with the High-Speed Rail Authority say the state must not waste its opportunity.

“The eyes of the nation are upon us,” Vice Chairwoman Fran Florez told a Senate committee last week. “We cannot afford for California high-speed rail to stall.”