Cross-posted at NewGeography.com
In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A to allocate $9.95
billion of the state’s money to a high-speed rail system. Just two
years later, many of these same voters are yelling and screaming at the
High-Speed Rail Authority to revise their plans. Why have Californians
turned against this project so quickly?
Initially High Speed Rail seemed like a wise investment. The California
High-Speed Rail Authority posts a video on its website of President
Obama outlining the benefits of high-speed rail systems. However, by now
this video seems a bit dated. In this April 2009 speech, Obama claims
that not only would high-speed reduce travel time and emissions, but it
would also decrease gridlock and save or create 150,000 jobs. It would
be faster, cheaper, and easier. As if that were not enough to convince
you, he goes on to say that the project is "on schedule and under
budget."
Yet today, the California’s high-speed rail system has stalled.
Citizens and state officials alike have lost faith in the rail
authority to competently plan, fund, and build a rail line from San
Francisco to Los Angeles. The project’s developers continue to scramble
to secure funding.
Not surprisingly, the cost of HSR in California has soared well above
initial projections. Estimated costs for the first phase alone have
risen from $30.7 billion in 2008 to $42.6 billion, adding over $10
billion to the original total of $45 billion. This is a problem. Though
it received $9.95 billion in bonds through Proposition 1A, the
California Rail Authority still must depend heavily on private business
to foot a significant, and likely growing, portion of the bill.
California treasurer Bill Lockyer has doubts that the rail authority will be able to sell the deal – due
in part to a lack of consistent estimates in ridership or cost – to
either potential bond-buyers or California consumers.
Perhaps an even more serious problem has been caused by the hastiness
with which California’s HSR is being developed. There often has been
little consideration for local public opinion.
A case in point lies on the Peninsula just south of San Francisco. The
rail authority is hurrying to build on the Peninsula so that it can
qualify for federal funding. But they have run into a flurry of
complaints from city governments and citizens. Though it initially
proposed building a trench system, essentially a shallow box for the
train that would be covered at street crossings, it backed off on the
idea in an August 6 application for federal monetary support. Instead,
the Authority plans to run the line mainly on aerial structures to save
money for later construction. "If the trench solution is selected," it
claims, "then less infrastructure could be implemented." Since then it has switched to erecting aerial structures in Burlingame as well.
Many cities along the Peninsula have rebelled over these abrupt
adjustments. One of the primary arguments for high-speed rail has been
to help the environment, but qualms about aerial structures are also
rooted in environmental concerns. Menlo Park, Atherton, and later Palo
Alto filed a lawsuit against the rail authority
in 2008 in a partnership with four environmental groups, complaining
that the authority did not conduct a thorough environmental review of
the trench system before scrapping the idea. Judges in Sacramento are
currently reviewing the authority’s plan to use the southern Pacheco
Pass entrance from Merced, which the plaintiffs claim is less
ecologically friendly. Decisions like these do not fit with California
state environmental laws that require agencies to study several
alternatives before approving a project.
This lawsuit only made minor gains in addressing the cities’
complaints. While a Sacramento judge required the rail authority to
make some concessions in the 2009 ruling, it sided with them on most of
the issues, mainly because the state’s responsibility in this project
remains unclear. However, recent developments over aerial structures
have stimulated a tsunami of lawsuit threats. In one editorial, Martin
Engel, a transportation commissioner for Menlo Park and opponent of
California’s high-speed rail, rallies the Bay Area using a mob
mentality: "Those towns that have refused to join the PCC out of fear
of Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto’s penchant for lawsuits, now have
to re-assess their reluctance. Lawsuits are the only genuine legal
negotiating tools at our disposal."
But, in reality, lawsuits are not the only weapons in the Peninsula’s
arsenal. Democratic Assemblyman Jerry Hill of San Mateo has threatened
to put high-speed rail back on the ballot
if costs start to surpass initial estimates. This puts enormous
pressure on the California Rail Authority since every day delayed means
a rise in costs. If it does not secure the support of Peninsula cities
soon, these extra expenses will push costs over the estimate and push
the project back to the voters.
San Mateo and Burlingame, though not involved in Atherton and Menlo
Park’s original lawsuit, have just as much cause to complain. Almost
one-third of the track crossings on the Peninsula would be in both
cities. Building will certainly disrupt the businesses in the cities’
respective downtowns, many of which have flourished with locally owned
boutiques and restaurants. Burlingame, "The City of Trees," prides
itself on the natural beauty of its neighborhoods. Cement walls
carrying clamorous trains will undoubtedly disrupt this bucolic
reality. If high-speed rail is put back on the ballot, it is likely
that these cities will vote it down.
Communities, not just city governments, are coming together to stop
high-speed rail. The Community Coalition on High Speed Rail in Palo
Alto, for example, is holding a presentation about the rail authority’s use
of eminent domain in this project. The proposed elevated rail structure
would displace residents, some permanently, and would lower the value
of surrounding homes because of the elevated noise and traffic. The
Coalition has been very active throughout the summer and will continue
to fight for Peninsula residents.
The already dire situation with Caltrain, the Peninsula’s current rail
system, should provide a warning for city officials about the viability
of high-speed rail. It has cut costs recently because of decreased
ridership, which now averages 2,000 fewer riders per weekday compared to 2009, a
5% drop. Train stops have already been eliminated from Tamien in San
Jose down to Gilroy. Caltrain’s experience has hardly shown the
viability of expanded rail service.
To some, high-speed rail epitomizes a new era of California
infrastructure innovation. Yet a less sanguine reality is seeping in.
Project costs continue to rise even as ridership estimates decline. The
resulting increase in ticket prices creates even less of an incentive
to choose rail over air travel. Even worse, the California Rail
Authority is beginning to alienate potential riders from the Peninsula
down to Los Angeles, many of whom could conceive of more useful ways to
employ the state’s slender resources.