California High-Speed Rail

Infobox Public transit
name = California High-Speed Rail

---

imagesize = 100px
locale = California
transit_type = High-speed rail
ridership = 91-95 million yearly (projected) [cite web |url=http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080128135423_R9a_Report.pdf |title=Bay Area/California High Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study |accessdate=2008-07-17 |author=Cambridge Systematics Inc. |year=2007 |month=July |format=PDF |publisher=California High-Speed Rail Authority |pages=pg. 71-72]
system_length = 700+ mi (1,100+ km) (proposed)cite web |url=http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080123171537_ImplementationPlan.pdf |title=Implementation Plan |accessdate=2008-07-17 |author=California High-Speed Rail Authority |format=PDF |pages=pg. 23,25]
operator = TBD
website = http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

The California High-Speed Rail project is a proposed high-speed rail system in the state of California. The system is being planned by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which will design, build, and operate the system. If built, high-speed trains capable of convert|220|mph|abbr=on will link San Francisco and Los Angeles in as little as two and a half hours. The proposed system would also serve other major Calfornia cities, such as Sacramento, San Jose and San Diego.

An implementation plan approved in August 2005 estimated that it would take 8 to 11 years to "develop and begin operation of an initial segment of the California high-speed train."

__TOC__

Current rail options

Currently, intercity rail service does not directly serve the city of San Francisco. Amtrak provides bus connections from various San Francisco locations to its stations in Oakland and Emeryville across the bay.

The fastest Amtrak route from Oakland to Los Angeles is the "San Joaquin" train line to Bakersfield, and then a bus from Bakersfield to Los Angeles or various locations in Southern California. A trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles takes a little more than nine hours. The San Joaquin route is not time-efficient as it takes a circuitous route north and east from Oakland and through the Sacramento river delta to enter the Central Valley. A one-seat trip on rail from Oakland/Emeryville to Los Angeles is provided along the Pacific Coast named the "Coast Starlight". However, it is much slower, taking more than 12 hours.

Route

References: [http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080130153901_Map_North.pdf] [http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080130153959_Map_South.pdf] [http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080323164928_Preferred_State_020608-Small.pdf]

The system will initially stretch from San Francisco and Sacramento, via the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire. Proposed stations on the route are shown on the right, [cite web |url=http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm |title=Route Map |author=CA High-Speed Rail Authority |accessdate=2008-07-17] with stations on the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles-Anaheim route given in bold. [cite web |url=http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080121165954_052307_plan.pdf |title=Phasing Plan |author=CA High-Speed Rail Authority |accessdate=2008-07-17]

One major issue that was initially debated was whether to connect the Bay Area via the Altamont Pass or the Pacheco Pass. On November 15 2007, the Authority issued a recommendation that the High Speed Rail follow the Pacheco Pass route, rather than the Altamont route. Pacheco pass was recommended because it is the more direct route, and the Altamont route poses several engineering challenges. Also, cities along the Altamont route option are not united in supporting the route. Some cities, such as Pleasanton and Fremont, even opposed the Altamont route option, citing concerns over possible property taking and increase in traffic congestion. [ [http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080122105425_110407_staffrec.pdf CHSRA Staff Recommendation Presentation] ] Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, oppose the Pacheco route because the area is less developed and more environmentally sensitive than Altamont. [ [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/11/15/BAE9TCG3N.DTL&type=politics High Speed Rail Authority staff advises Pacheco Pass route to L.A.] ]

On December 19, 2007 the Authority Board agreed to have the project proceed according to the staff recommendation for the Pacheco Pass option. [ [http://cbs13.com/local/high.speed.rail.2.614363.html cbs13.com - State Picks Pacheco Pass For High-Speed Rail] ] Pacheco Pass was considered the superior route for long-distance travel between Southern California and the Bay Area, although the Altamont Pass option would serve as a good commuter route. According to the recommendation, conventional rail improvements will be made to the Altamont corridor to complement the high-speed project.

Funding

A statewide bond measure to fund the core segment of the system was initially scheduled for the 2004 general election. It was first delayed to 2006 general election due to budget concerns raised at the time by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In January 2006, the Governor chose to omit the initial funds for the project from his $222.6 billion dollar Public Works Bond over the next 10 years. The Governor did include $14.3 million in the 2006-07 budget for the Authority, enough for it to begin some preliminary engineering and detailed study work. [http://oldsite.bayrailalliance.org/issueupdate/past_updat.html] The high-speed rail bond measure was delayed again [ [http://www.progressiverailroading.com/transitnews/article.asp?id=5017 Private equity firm purchases TydenBrammall parent Tyden Group] ] from 2006 to 2008 to avoid competition with the huge infrastructure bond, which passed in the 2006 general election. The high speed rail bond measure will finally come to a vote in the 2008 general election as Proposition 1A.

The Governor refused to fund the Authority to the level that it requested for the 2007-08 fiscal year. In July, the State Legislature's conference committee came out with an appropriation of $41.1 million [ [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/06/EDGNNQ4U1Q1.DTL Governor should make high-speed rail part of his legacy ] ] [ [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_77_bill_20070709_amended_asm_v97.html Full text of S 77, Section 2.00, Item 2665-001-0046] ] of the requested $130 million, but that number then diminished to a mere $4.7 million [ [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_78_bill_20070719_amended_asm_v97.html Full text of S 78, as amended] ; see section 25, relating to Item 2665-001-0046] during the seven-week budget stalemate. The final budget included nearly $20.7 million for the Authority, [ [http://2007-08.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/StateAgencyBudgets/2000/2665/department.html Enacted Budget Detail – Business, Transportation & Housing – 2665 High-Speed Rail Authority] ] enough for the Authority to decide its preferred route between the Central Valley and the Bay Area, continue "engineering and environmental work in the LA-Anaheim corridor, and continue engineering and design work needed to receive the regulatory approvals to build the system." [cite web |url=http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/25/news/sandiego/15_98_788_24_07.txt |title=California High-Speed Rail Authority forges ahead |work=North County Times |date=2007-08-25 |accessdate=2007-08-28] [ [http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/news/08-24-07.pdf California High-Speed Rail Authority Forges Ahead While Adjusting Work Program to Fit Constricted Budget] ]

If passed, the ballot measure would provide $9 billion for the construction of the core segment between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim and an additional $950 million for improvements on local railroad systems, which would serve as feeder systems for high-speed rail mainline. However, the project would still depend on federal matching funds, since a $9.95 billion bond issue would cover at most half of the estimated cost of the initial core segment.

According to a 2004 estimate, the complete system from Sacramento to San Diego would likely have a cost of more than $30 billion, with 2007 estimates of the cost being $40 billion. The California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to use the projected operating profit from the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles line to finance further extensions to Sacramento and San Diego.

Governor Schwarzenegger has encouraged lawmakers to tour existing high-speed rail systems so that they could gain a better understanding of the system and would be more willing to support it. [cite news |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/01/local/me-arnold1 |title=See the world, let special interests pay, Schwarzenegger urges lawmakers |publisher=Los Angeles Times |accessdate=2008-05-01 |last=Halper |first=Evan |date=April 30, 2008]

Criticisms

In September 2008, "The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report" was released by libertarian think tank Reason Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Citizens Against Government Waste. It projects that the final cost for the complete high-speed rail system will be $65 to $81 billion, which is higher than official estimates. It also projects there will be fewer riders by 2030 than official estimates: 23-31 million riders a year instead of 65-96 million riders forecast by the Rail Authority. The report finds that no existing high-speed rail train currently meets the proposed speed and safety goals (although the safety systems have not been fully specified) and that the reduction in CO-2 emissions would be inconsequential. Nevertheless, the report projects that high-speed rail operating costs would be between 4.8 to 5.9 cents per seat-mile, giving high-speed rail a better than 2:1 operating cost advantage over airlines [http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/domfares/sifla.pdf] .

See also

* Desert Xpress, a proposed high-speed rail from Victorville to Las Vegas.
* California-Nevada Interstate Maglev, a proposed maglev from Anaheim, California to Las Vegas, Nevada.
* High-speed rail in the United States

References

External links

* [http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ California High Speed Rail Authority] official website
* [http://www.highspeedrailforcalifornia.com/ High Speed Rail for California] State Assemblyperson Fiona Ma's Proposition 1A advocacy and California high-speed rail informational website
* [http://cahsr.blogspot.com/ California High Speed Rail Blog] discussion website
* [http://www.areyouhotforhighspeed.com/ Are you hot for high-speed rail?] informational based website
* [http://www.californiahighspeedtrains.com/ California for High-Speed Trains] Proposition 1A advocacy website
* [http://derailhsr.com/ Derail] Proposition 1A opposition website
* [http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/96/RR/UCB-ITS-RR-96-3.pdf The Full Cost of Intercity Transportation] , a 1996 study done at University of California, Berkeley examining a state rail system (based on fuel and other cost figures from the early 1990s)
* [http://www.hjta.org/files/pdf/highspeedrail_prop.pdf The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report] September 2008 study by Reason Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation and Citizens Against Government Waste