Is this a time for state bullet train? (Source: Fresno Bee)

Is this a time for state bullet train? - Dan Walters - fresnobee.com

Is this a time for state bullet train?
Published online on Sunday, Jul. 12, 2009

By Dan Walters / The Sacramento Bee

California is mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression: its budget is riddled with deficits, its credit rating is dropping into junk status and Sacramento is issuing IOUs in lieu of checks.

Is this any time for the state to undertake construction of a high-speed railroad line between Northern and Southern California that will cost at least $40 billion, much of it from bonds to be repaid from a state budget that already is hemorrhaging red ink?

Yes, say its fervent advocates, contending that a bullet train, similar to those in Europe and Japan, will reduce air and auto congestion, reduce greenhouse gases and generate many billions of dollars in economic benefits.

Last year, California voters passed a $9.95 billion bond issue to provide initial financing for the system, with the rest to assumedly come from the federal government, private investors and perhaps revenue bonds.
The criticism continues, however, questioning both whether a high-speed rail system makes transportation and economic sense and the route adopted by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), especially running trains over the unpopulated Pacheco Pass between San Jose and the Central Valley.

Bullet train advocates have been touting California as qualifying for a significant portion of the $8 billion set aside in federal stimulus money for transit because of the bond issue.

Just a few days ago, however, the feds decided to place the Los Angeles-Las Vegas high-speed route promoted by Nevada interests, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in the California system.

It raises the specter that huge sums would be spent to make it easier for Californians to spend their money in Las Vegas casinos.

Meanwhile, opposition to the Pacheco Pass route appears to be growing because it would mean routing trains down the bucolic San Francisco Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. The alternate would be to run trains over the Altamont Pass along Interstate 580 into the Stockton-Tracy area, a more heavily traveled commuter corridor.

Environmental activists in Palo Alto are complaining about the impact on their city and somewhat mysteriously, language appeared in the still-pending revisions to the 2009-10 state budget that makes allocation of $139 million in high-speed rail planning funds contingent on "alternative alignments" being considered. Advocates of the Pacheco Pass route consider it to be a poison pill and will try to get it removed before a final budget is enacted, if that ever occurs.

While $9 billion of the voter-approved bond issue is to be used for the system, if and when it is ever built, the remaining $995 million can be spent on local mass transit systems on the assumption that they will improve access to high-speed rail.

There is a suspicion among those who chart the erratic course taken by the bullet train project that when push comes to shove, its only tangible fruit will be those local projects.
Dan Walters writes for The Bee’s Capitol bureau. E-mail: dwalters@sacbee. com
 mail: P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852.