|
Hot
Topic |
High-Speed Rail in California
|
LIBRARY Institute of Governmental Studies University of California 109 Moses Hall #2370 Berkeley, CA 94720-2370 510-642-1472 (voice) 510-643-0866 (fax) |
|
The issue of transportation in California is a critical one. With the world's 6th largest economy and an ever-growing population, rapid travel between major cities and population areas is becoming increasingly important. In the 1980s promoters pushed high-speed rail, a concept already in use in Asia and Europe, as a possible alternative to overcrowded highways and expensive air travel. In the 1990s the attention over high-speed rail led to the creation of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), a Board charged with designing a high-speed train system for the state. CHSRA introduced a plan in 2000 for a system that would link all of the states major population centers including the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was presented to the legislature in September of 2002 as Senate Bill 1856. The bill would provide for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used in conjunction with available federal funds for funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system. It is currently slated to go before the voters as a proposition in the November 7, 2006 general election (Initiative Update, California Secretary of State). In June, 2006, the California legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger moved to delay the vote on the bond issue until Nov. 2008.
Estimates in the early 1990s found California population rising
to more than 45 million by 2020 prompting many in the state to call for a new
way to provide transportation between major cities and regions. Other states
have experimented with high-speed rail including a voter approved constitutional amendment
in Florida for the development of a high-speed train system and the introduction of a 150-mile-per-hour Amtrak service
between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston in the late 1990s. In the
early 1980s a bullet-train project was put forward in California as Assembly Bill 3647, which passed the legislature and was signed into law
in 1982. It soon fell under intense scrutiny and legislation
was drafted barring the initiative until it met certain environmental and financial
conditions. Some environmentalists and local governments actively opposed the high-speed rail plan and the American High Speed Rail Corporation (the company granted a franchise to build the bullet train), abandoned the project in 1984 citing funding difficulties.
In 1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)
was established, charged with planning, designing, constructing and operating
a high-speed train system for the state. In August of 2000, Governor Gray Davis
signed AB
1703 which extended the tenure of CHSRA to Dec. 31, 2003. He
also included $5 million in the state budget to begin the environmental clearance
for a statewide high-speed train system. In 2002, the legislature made the rail
authority permanent.
The Proposed System
In
2000, CHSRA produced a business plan for
the design, building and funding of a statewide bullet-train system. The proposed
700-mile rail network would cost about $37 billion and stretch from San Francisco,
Oakland and Sacramento in the north to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south
(see proposed California system route
released by CHSRA).The system would also connect Stockton, Modesto and
other inland cities in the north as well as other areas in the L.A. and San
Diego regions. Bullet-trains are designed to operate at speeds up to 220 mph,
making the travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles 2-1/2 hours during
peak commute times. The proposed system would use magnetic levitation technology
to suspend and propel vehicles along a guideway. CHSRA claims that the system
could carry as many as 68 million passengers a year by 2020.
Numerous questions have been raised about the proposed system, most noticeably regarding system routes around the state. The authority decided in September 2004 to postpone a decision on how to take the train from the Central Valley to the Bay Area until further studies comparing alignments near Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass could be done. A route that would cut through Henry Coe State Park in Morgan Hill, which includes the Orestimba State Wilderness Preserve has caused outcry from environmentalists. Part of the proposal which allows for aligning tracks with Interstate 5 for crossing from the Central Valley into Southern California would also cause cutting through major parks. CHRSA met in September to hear arguments over what routes would best serve the state's transit needs. Gov. Schwarzenegger signed legislation in September 2004 that includes $2.5 million for the high-speed Rail Authority and the San Francisco Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission to study the best way for high-speed trains to move between that region and the Central Valley.
The bullet-train proposal and particularly the California High-Speed Rail Authority have been embroiled in controversy. When CHRSA released its Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement in January, 2004, it was immediately criticized for deficiencies and inaccuracies. Critics claimed that CHRSA had paid foreign environmental consultants for supporting opinions of various recommendations included within the report. Accusations of other possible conflicts of interest have brought CHRSA under scrutiny and further complicated the bullet-train proposal.
See final Environmental Impact Report, released by the CHRSA.
The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was introduced in September of 2002 as Senate Bill 1856, by state Sen. Jim Costa, D-Fresno. The act was originally scheduled to appear on the November 2, 2004, General Election ballot. However, Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Simi Valley pushed forward legislation to cancel the bond measure. The Legislature kept the bond alive with SB 1169, which postponed a vote to November 2006. On June 24, 2004 Gov. Schwarzenegger signed SB 1169, placing the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century on the November 2006 ballot.
If passed, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century would issue $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used to develop the high-speed train system proposed by CHRSA. General obligation bonds are known as General Fund Supported bonds and must be approved by the voters. Their repayment is guaranteed by state tax revenues. Most recently sold general obligation bonds are paid off over a 30 year period. The interest rate for general obligation bonds is currently around 5.25%, and the cost of paying them off is about $2 for each dollar borrowed (see An Overview of State Bond Debt, Legislative Analyst's Office). The $9 billion raised by the act would go to funding the building of a segment of the system between the San Francisco Transbay terminal and the Los Angeles Union Station. All remaining funds would go to fund additional segments of the system including Oakland-San Jose, Sacramento-Merced and Inland Empire-San Diego. The separate $950,000,000 raised by the initiative would be allocated for capital improvements to commuter and intercity rail lines which will connect to the high-speed train system once it is built.
As the Safe, Reliable
High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century is not due till November,
2006, few questions have been raised over the virtues and defects of the proposal.
However, the system created by CHRSA and the notion of a California bullet-train
have been subject of some debate. Proponents of the bullet-train project have
compared the proposed system and its technology to that of Japan, Taiwan and
South Korea, where large populations and limited land use have prompted these
nations to develop similar systems. With the California population rising more
than 12 million by 2020, advocates of high-speed rail say that its imperative
that California adopt alternatives to compliment highways and air travel. Critics
of high-speed rail claim that people will not ride a bullet-train because traveling
by air would still be quicker, and that the billions of dollars necessary to
build the system could be better spent on additional highways and airport runways.
They also point to alleged corruption within CHRSA and other potential conflicts
of interest as reasons to abandon the high-speed train project.
In April
2005, members of the legislature introduced AB
713 which would delay the vote on the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act
until November 2008. They feel that the California economy is too unstable and
that voters will not support the act in such an environment. Other legislators
say that the California economy will improve by November 2006 and that any further
delay would add to the already overwhelming cost of the project. The final environmental
impact report by the CHRSA is reportedly almost finished. Some critics express
concern that a delay in a vote on the act would force the environmental impact
report to be re-done. As of May 10, Governor Schwarzenegger has not come out
to support or oppose AB 713. On May 26, 2005, the Assembly approved AB 713 by
a vote of 44-11, with 25 abstentions. However, the Senate has not passed the
bill as of yet and the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act is still slated for
the November 2006 ballot.
Gov. Schwarzenegger released a bond plan in January, 2006 which called for more than $222-billion in investment and repair of California's battered infrastructure. The 10-year plan did not include plans for high-speed rail development. Schwarzenegger aids say that it would have been impossible to work high-speed rail into his plan. They also say the governor supports the idea of high-speed rail and has no plans to dissolve the CHRSA. The California Alliance for Jobs, an alliance of more than 1,700 construction companies and over 50,000 union workers, has introduced their own plan which would hike the state's sales tax by a quarter-cent to help finance infrastructure bond later this year. Their plan, like the governors, does not mention high-speed rail. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has also released a $10.2 billion infrastructure bond proposal which includes $1 billion for a high-speed connection linking San Francisco and Los Angeles. Many commentators believe that the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act is quickly fading in popularity in the legislature. With Schwarzenegger infrastructure plan excluding high-speed rail and a number of other bond issues already being negotiated, some believe that the act will not make onto this year's ballot. Some supporters of the act believe that if it is not passed this year, it is unlikely it ever will be as costs will likely rise in the future. Detractors have continually pressured the legislature against the act in favor of focusing on reducing congestion on California's highways.
On June 26th, 2006, Senators approved AB 713 By a 33-0 vote. The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, postponed the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act until the November 4, 2008 election. Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the bill later that summer. Both the Gov. and Democratic leaders of the Senate felt the bond might create confusion amongst voters already voting on other infrastructure highways, flood control and prisons. There is discussion in Sacramento of delaying the bond act again past 2008. This would take legislative approval. Supporters of high-speed rail plan say this would effectively end any chance of the proposal connecting with voters.
California High-Speed Rail Authority
Established in 1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority is charged with the planning, designing, constructing and operating a state of the art high-speed train system.
California Rail News
Official website of the Train Riders Association of California. See the articles area for documents relating to the high-speed rail initiative.
California High Speed Rail
Bay Rail Alliance (formerly Peninsula Rail 2000) is an all volunteer transit consumer group working to realize a regional rail system that will ring the San Francisco Bay Area.
RailPAC: Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada
See President's Commentary, November 2004.
California's High Speed Rail: Some Facts
David Levinson, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota. Opposes the California high-speed rail proposal.
California's High Speed Rail Land Impacts
Website of Defense of Place, a project of the Resource Renewal Institute. Focused on the impacts of the proposed high-speed rail on protected land resources in California.
Mark Baldassare.
"Special survey on Californians and the environment," PPIC Statewide Survey: July 2003.
See p. 16 -- "Sixty-five percent of residents, and 60 percent of likely voters, say they would vote yes on the Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act slated for the ballot in November 2004."
The following citations include links to full-text online when available. For more info, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles.
Maeshiro, Karen.
"High-speed rail called transit fix: November ballot to seek funding," Daily News of Los Angeles (CA), Dec. 16, 2007
Access World News (UCB)Geissinger, Steve.
"Propositions too complex?" San Mateo County Times, July 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)[Opinion].
"Bullet train funds may be derailed," Bakersfield Californian, The (CA), June 27, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)Lucas, Greg.
"Bullet train likely chugging to derailment/$9.95 billion bond could be taken off of November ballot," San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 26, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle
Henshaw, Jake.
"Rail not in governor's plan," Visalia Times-Delta, Jan. 10, 2006.
Access World NewsSanders, Jim.
"$222B plan shoots down bullet train," Modesto Bee, Jan. 7, 2006.
Access World News
Cabanatuan, Michael.
"Lawmakers push $10 billion bond for infrastructure: But that's only a fraction of what region needs just for transportation, official says," San Francisco Chronicle, December 8, 2005.
San Francisco ChronicleHolstege, Sean .
"State Dems propose series of megabonds," San Mateo County Times, December 8, 2005.
Access World NewsFitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"High-speed-rail bond still looking for right track," Sacramento Bee, Aug. 28, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)Lawrence, Steve.
"High-speed rail system can't get going: State: The vote on a bond to fund it has been delayed once and may be again," Long Beach Press-Telegram, Aug. 7, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)Walker, Mark.
"'Maglev' trains that reach speeds exceeding 300 mph eyed for county," North County Times, June 3, 2005.
North County Times
Andrews, Donna [Opinion].
"High-speed rail answer to traffic issue," San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 29, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
[Opinion]
"Let us have Maglev: A little psychology gets us on board for this port pollution solution," Long Beach Press-Telegram, May 8, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)Fitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"Bullet train may hit wall again," Sacramento Bee, Apr. 17, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)[Opinion]
"Stuck in the station: High-speed rail proposal headed for another ballot postponement," Fresno Bee, Apr. 12, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Fitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"High-speed rail vote may be moved to '08," Sacramento Bee, Apr. 10, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Martin, Glen.
"State parks in trouble, backers say: New road projects, high-speed rail called biggest threats," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 24, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle[Opinion]
"Wrong fast track," Press-Enterprise, Jan. 31, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)[Opinion]
"Slow motion: Languid pace of high-speed rail indicative of timid state," Press Democrat, Jan. 31, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)Sherbert, Eric.
"Rail authority gives ok to some train routes," RecordNet, Jan. 27, 2005.
RecordNet"Bay Area route left open in high-speed rail system," San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)Stern, Eric.
"State's high-speed rail plan remains stuck at the station," Modest Bee, Jan. 26, 2005.
Modest Bee"Rail project's costs soaring," Daily News of Los Angeles, Dec. 25, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Richards, Gary
"BART, Bullet would make S.J. major hub," San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 24, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Downey, Dave.
"Key high-speed rail decision approaches," North County Times, Dec. 13, 2004.
North County Times
[Opinion]
"The Bipolar Express: Time to derail bullet-train boondoggle for good," The Orange County Register, Nov. 15, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Stocksill, Mason.
"Planners theorize more transit options may encourage use," Sun, The (San Bernardino, CA), Nov. 15, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)"Group unveils high-speed rail route," San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Nov. 11, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Fitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"No easy route to picking best line for bullet train," The Fresno Bee, Nov. 11, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)"San Bernardino would be cut from rapid rail," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)"High-speed rail to bypass Visalia: Bullet Train: A tentative map shows the line going nonstop between Bakersfield and Fresno," Press-Enterprise, The (Riverside, CA), Nov. 11, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Rogers, Paul.
"High-speed rail setback for S.J. Altamont Pass Route, bypassing valley, to be included in study," San Jose Mercury News, Sept. 23, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Almond, Andrea.
"Officials discuss route for high-speed rail line," Ventura County Star, Sept. 23, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Koates, Kevin C.
"Maglev Trains Could Get U.S. Transit Back on Track," Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Neufeld, Amelia and Chong, Jia-Rui.
"Voters to Face 14 Initiatives on Nov. Ballot: Propositions 59 through 72 will ask Californians to OK stem-cell study, fund high-speed rail and require the collecting of DNA from felons," Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Rogers, Paul
"Bullet train route debated: Speakers tell panel to keep line out of state park funding delay advances," San Jose Mercury News, May 27, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Fitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"Rail bond delays to be costly: Proponents agree it should be moved, but when?" The Fresno Bee, May 2, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Mascaro, Lisa.
"High-speed rail backers double up transit: State authority, So-Cal group link efforts: hearing today will focus on 200 mph trains," Long Beach Press-Telegram, Apr. 13, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Yost, Phil.
"Tracking high-speed rail proposal is slowing down as price rises and the debate about its route heats up," San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 28, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Fitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"Debate over bond has bullet train in limbo," Sacramento Bee, Mar. 21, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)[Opinion]
"Recently the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) released a report concluding that a high-speed rail project is the best way to meet the transportation needs of Californians in the decades to come," San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Mar. 20, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)[Opinion]
"A high-speed path to more state debt," The Orange County Register, Mar. 18, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Fitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"Lawmakers look at possible routes for a bullet train," Fresno Bee, Feb. 18, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)[Opinion]
"Put high-speed rail bond on hold," Star-News (Pasadena, CA), Feb. 9, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Cabanatuan, Michael.
"High-speed railroad to L.A. crawls ahead: Schwarzenegger wants to put off ballot measure," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 6, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle[Opinion]
"Slow high-speed rail: Too many unanswered questions remain," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 2, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Cabanatuan, Michael.
"Study touts rapid rail links: $37 billion project cheaper, cleaner than roads, airports," San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 27, 2004.
San Francisco ChronicleBizjak, Tony.
"Bullet train's cost estimate jumps 50%: Bigger price tags for land acquisition and construction push the projected total to $37 billion, raising concerns," Sacramento Bee, Jan. 27, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Trainor, Richard.
"The California bullet train, then and now," CounterPunch, Dec. 9, 2003.
CounterPunchBurress, Charles.
"Bullet trains' next stop -- California coast? Officials study Japan's system as a model," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 7, 2003.
San Francisco ChronicleRichards, Gary.
"Supporters of high-speed rail seek $10 billion in funding: organizers hope to spark interest," San Jose Mercury News, July 17, 2003.
NewsBank (UCB)
| Prepared by
the staff of the IGS Library. Send comments to igsl@uclink.berkeley.edu. |
|