A Different Future with California High-Speed Rail

[marmar]

from the Transport Politic blog:



A Different Future with California High-Speed Rail


Last week, America’s future in high-speed rail took a modest step forward. On Thursday, California’s State Assembly approved by a 51 to 27 margin the release of $2.5 billion in state bonds for the construction of a 130-mile segment of 220-mph tracks through the Central Valley and the implementation of $2 billion in commuter rail improvements in the Bay Area and Los Angeles regions. On Friday, by a vote of 21 to 16, the State Senate expressed its agreement.* If all goes as planned, the project could be under construction by the beginning of next year. Tracks between Madera and Bakersfield could be ready for use by 2017, the first step towards what could be an eventual 2h40 journey time for trains traveling from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles.

The passage of the bill, which also frees up $3.2 billion in federal funds allocated for the project, is a major success not only for Governor Jerry Brown and California’s Democratic Party (no Republicans in either chamber voted in favor of the program), but also for President Obama and his Department of Transportation, which have championed high-speed rail as an essential element of America’s future transportation system. Moreover, it is a victory for those who argue that, despite the challenges and the compromises, in order to advance societal change on a grand scale, major investments in projects such as this are necessary.



The line section that will be built first has not been without controversy. Choosing to begin construction in the Central Valley, away from the population centers of the Bay Area and L.A. Basin, has induced the expected calls of a “railway to nowhere.” Yet the route selected in fact serves an area with a population of 3 million people and offers the crucial link between the two large metropolitan areas to the north and south. It is the only section of the system where sustained speeds of 220 mph can be offered by trains cruising down the straight-aways through farmlands. And it can be done at the moderate cost of about $44 million per mile, in a similar range as projects such as France’s LGV Sud-Europe Atlantique, now under construction (211 miles at a cost of €6.2 billion, or $7.6 billion, so about $36 million per mile).

If the only goal of the project were to connect L.A. and San Francisco as quickly as possible, the project could have been built to run around I-5, which charts a slightly straighter route through the Central Valley — not doing so, the L.A. Times told us today, could be a major flaw in the project.** But that alignment would skip over the Central Valley’s cities, depriving them of the direct access to California’s biggest regions. Because they currently do not have good airline service, they stand to be some of the places that benefit most from the project. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/07/09/a-different-future-with-california-high-speed-rail/

[tularetom]

1. I wish they would reconsider the I-5 alignment

I live in the foothills to the east of the proposed alignment shown in green on that map so it involves a drive of about 35 miles for me to access a station. If they moved to the so called I-5 alignment my drive would increase by another 30+ miles.

But I'm not getting any younger and I'd like to see this project built in my lifetime. And the proposed alignment is just loaded with complications primarily in the area of buying rights of way. The area is made up primarily of small farms and rural residential lots (5 to 20 acres) and consequently there are a lot of issues to deal with (relocation, loss of revenue, finding comparable properties etc) not to mention the sheer bureaucratic overhead of preparing multiple deeds, court cases, legal fees and so forth. By contrast the I-5 alignment would traverse an area of huge holdings, many in the thousands of acres, and a lot of fallow ground. So there would be fewer owners to deal with and the value of the land would be less. Furthermore there would be potential for more high speed sections because of the lack of populated areas along the alignment.

The French consortium that built the TGV submitted a proposal for the I-5 alignment to the HSR commission early on but it was rejected due to political pressure from legislators representing districts along the route that was ultimately selected.

I'm overjoyed that the state has opted to go ahead with this project but I'm not optimistic about its chances for success given the current alignment.

[FarCenter]

2. How do they propose getting HS rail from San Fernando to Palmdale?

My recollection of the Antelope Valley Freeway is that it has some pretty steep grades compared with the limits for HS rail roadbeds.

[musiclawyer]

3. I 5 would have speeded up construction but not ultimate efficacy

This is a long term thing. (Imagine BART in 1960.....Many said it was a waste of money. But imagine the bay area without it). And they want the most customers, not just the customers who already can catch a quick flight on Southwest Airlines between LA and the Bay Area. By going up the spine of Hwy 99, they get the relatively large and unserved/underserved markets of Bakersfield and Fresno into the mix with real transportation for the first time ever. These are relatively large and very poor cities, that need as much help as possible. This is where California's bottom 50% live. Plus there are universities near that route that don't exist on an I 5 route. If anyplace needs jobs and transit options it's the cities along Hwy 99. This was the right call.