PROPOSITION 1A

PROPOSITION 1A

In an ideal world, instead of a high-speed rail system, I would rather see airport and road capacity held constant and wait for congestion and increased oil prices to reduce demand for longer-distance intercity travel. We have abused cheap long-distance travel to the detriment of our health and environment, and it should be curtailed. However, purposely constraining road and airport capacity is politically unpalatable and unlikely. Thus, given the dangers of global warming, a high-speed rail system makes some sense. At present, I cautiously support Prop 1A despite all its flaws because I think it would eventually lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions relative to a scenario where no high-speed rail system is built (since roads and airports would likely see relatively greater expansion). However, its flaws are serious and there are many unanswered questions – before making a voting decision, these warrant your scrutiny.

Prop 1A Overview
Prop 1A would authorize the sale of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds. Of that, $9 billion would be available for a high-speed passenger train system, and primarily for the planning and construction of the SF-LA corridor. Before the California High Speed Rail Authority could use any of the funds, however, the legislature would have make specific appropriations, conditional on CHSRA’s submission of funding plans. CHSRA’s current plans for the SF-LA corridor include ten stops between the end-points, with an estimated total travel time of 2 hours 38 minutes (and a train speed of up to 220 mph). For maps of the proposed routes and more: CHSRA website.

My Thoughts
Funding:
By any estimate, the high-speed rail system would be very expensive. Excluding interest on bond debt, CHSRA estimates it would cost $45 billion (2006$) to construct the entire system and over $1 billion annually to operate it. One report, funded by Prop 1A opponents, estimates much higher costs. Constructing the SF-LA corridor by itself would be cheaper, but Prop 1A funds would still not even cover half the costs. So, where do the other funds come from?

CHSRA assumes large amounts of federal funding ($10-12 billion), private investment (~$5 billion) and local government cost-sharing. However, federal funding is not guaranteed and certainly not in the amount of $10-12 billion. Obtaining federal funding for transit, and especially rail, is very competitive. In addition, the potentially available pots of money (e.g. those provided in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) are not that large. Furthermore, private investment is unlikely until additional funding on top of Prop 1A is procured.

Will there be enough funding to complete the rail system, or even just the SF-LA corridor? The funding uncertainty and potential local opposition to the train system have caused some to contend it will never be built. Given the great political will behind the project, though, I think at least the SF-LA corridor will get built. However, it could take a very long time – and there are no guarantees. In addition, it is unlikely that operating costs and maintenance would ever be fully covered by user fees as CHSRA suggests, thus necessitating perennial government subsidies.

Ridership:
Even if the high-speed rail system does get fully funded, what would train ridership be and how much of it would be diverted versus induced? To reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions, the system would need to divert existing demand for intercity car and plane travel; inducing new demand for intercity travel would have the opposite effect.

Ridership levels are not easy to measure, particularly in the case of high-speed rail systems – since there are so few worldwide, making comparisons difficult. CHSRA estimates that 2020 ridership would be 32 million, with 6% coming from induced demand and 87% from diverted air and auto trips. However, 6% induced demand strikes me as awfully low.

For one, the large number of stations between LA and SF, some in much cheaper housing markets, will likely induce people to move and become long-distance commuters. Having that many stations also leads to me question the ability of the trains to make the SF-LA trip in 2 hours 38 minutes, which would require a 165 mph average speed. With greater delays, the number and proportion of trips diverted to the rail system would decrease.

Further, without the rail system, demand for intercity travel might decline on its own as oil prices and congestion increase – with demand diverted into telecommuting and longer trip stays. The rail system could prevent that demand reduction by providing another transport alternative. Still, with no rail system (and even with), road and airport capacity would likely be expanded, which would also impede an otherwise natural decrease in intercity travel.

I’m confident a high-speed rail system would divert some plane and auto trips and lead to eventual decreases in greenhouse gas emissions caused by intercity travel (after the emissions caused by the project’s construction are equalized) – I just don’t know by how much and how long it would take.

Environmental Impacts:
The proposed high-speed rail system would have negative environmental impacts. For instance, the system is expected to induce new growth around its stations, especially in the Central Valley (e.g. Fresno, Visalia, Bakersfield). It’s true that California is growing anyways, but there’s no need to further incentivize growth, especially in the form of long-distance commuters seeking cheap housing (and creating induced train system demand). CHSRA’s current plan to place the system stations in existing downtown areas is an important but insufficient counter-sprawl measure.

The rail system would also directly create environmental problems. For one, CHSRA’s preferred SF-LA route would bisect a huge swath of wetlands north of Los Banos, including the Grasslands Ecological Area, the “largest contiguous area of wetlands” in California, home to numerous rare and endangered species of plants and a wintering area for over a million birds along the Pacific Flyway.

In Sum
While I currently support Prop 1A, the benefits and feasibility of CHSRA's proposed high-speed rail system are so unclear that I may change my mind. Because of these uncertainties, I encourage you not just take someone's word for or against the proposal. Look over the questions raised and make your own judgment call.

Prop 1A Supporters/Opponents
Proponents include numerous environmental organizations, the California Democratic Party, numerous local governments and elected officials, and others.

Opponents include the Reason Foundation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, some elected officials, and others.