RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
High-speed rail: lasting legacy or taxpayer boondoggle?
| Friday, Oct 10 2008 5:23 PM
Last Updated: Monday, Oct 13 2008 7:59 AM
When Californians go to the polls in November, they’ll finally vote on a project they’ve heard about since 1995: high-speed rail.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:
Loading Stories
Advertisement
The California High-Speed Rail would be an 800-mile network of trains travelling at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour.
Costs: $33 billion (in 2008 dollars) to construct the mainline from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim. Up to $45 billion for full buildout, which includes extensions to San Diego and Sacramento. The system is expected to cost $1 billion per year to operate, which would be offset by fare revenue.
It will cost the state about $19 billion to pay off Proposition 1A bonds over 30 years, with average annual payments of $650 million.
Financing: Of the $10 billion in Prop 1A bond sales, $9 billion would be spent to build high-speed rail and about $1 billion will be spent to improve existing rail systems that would connect to it. Remaining funds to build the mainline would come from the federal government and private investors. Train fares are expected to pay for part or all of the system’s operating costs.
Technology: Trains would be electrified with steel wheels and rails.
Trip times/fares (one-way): Bakersfield to Los Angeles, 54 minutes; $28. Bakersfield to San Francisco, 1 hour 51 minutes, $43; Bakersfield to Fresno, 37 minutes, $25.
Timeline: Some segments could be operating in six years. Full operation will likely take up to 10 years. Polls: A July Field Poll showed 56 percent of voters favored Proposition 1A.
Sources: California Legislative Analyst’s Office, California High-Speed Rail Authority, The Field Poll
Photos:
An artist's rendering of a high-speed rail line through the Central Valley.Photo provided by Newlands & Company Inc.
An artist's rendering of a high-speed rail line through the Central Valley.Photo provided by Newlands & Company Inc.
Proposition 1A asks state voters to approve $10 billion in bond sales to start construction the largest public works project in state history: an 800-mile rail system that would run from San Francisco to Los Angeles with stops in Bakersfield, Fresno and other Central Valley cities.
Local support comes form groups and individuals who see the need for better a transportation system and the regional economic benefits it will bring.
But with a hefty price tag — about $33 billion to fund the San Francisco to Los Angeles portion — opponents say the project’s funding plan is flawed and could end up costing the state much more than what’s been proposed.
LOCAL IMPACTS
A recent report commissioned by the California High-Speed Rail Authority shed positive light on the project’s potential to bring billions in direct and indirect economic benefits to the Central Valley.
Kern County Taxpayer Association President Mike Turnipseed said the project is worth the cost.
He pointed to projects such as the California Aqueduct and state university system, championed by former Gov. Pat Brown, as examples of infrastructure projects that create jobs, strengthen the local economy and serve lasting purposes.
“That's what made California a great state,” Turnipseed said. “But we haven’t done that since Pat Brown. Instead, our state spends billions and billions of dollars every year that we have zero return on.”
The train could also speed progress on clean air by cutting air pollution from vehicles, said San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Executive Director Seyed Sadredin.
But it will only work if the system has numerous stops throughout the valley. While that’s currently the plan, Sadredin believe construction costs will escalate and some stops may get cut.
“If it's just a substitute for air travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco, that wouldn't help us,” he said.
COST CONCERNS
Fears that the project’s proposed costs will escalate are the main concerns expressed by those against Proposition 1A.
They say the lack of firm funding commitments to build the project will result in a taxpayer boondoggle similar to Boston’s Big Dig.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority said additional money for the project will come from the federal government and private investors. But critics are pessimistic about those promises.
“Given the way the markets have gone there's no way in hell they’re going to to get private sector investment in this,” said Adrian Moore, a transportation economist with the Reason Foundation.
Opponents also say the rail authority failed to produce an updated business plan by Sept. 1, a requirement it committed to in a bill this summer that added more fiscal oversight to the bond measure.
In response, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association filed a lawsuit this week, asking a court to compel the rail authority to produce the report.
State Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, lauded the group’s effort, accusing the authority of “a clear violation of the law.”
“You cannot come to the legislature and say you’ll do something ... and then defy it,” Ashburn said. “I’m saying to the voters, ‘Say no and hang onto your wallets.”
The rail authority’s executive director Mehdi Morshed said the late state budget, which didn’t pass until mid-September, held up money to prepare the plan.
“It’s kind of silly to criticize us when they didn’t get us the money in time to put the plan together and get it reviewed,” Morshed said.
The rail authority hopes to get the plan out a few days before Nov. 4, but most of the information it will contain has already been made public, Morshed said.
In response to fiscal concerns, Morshed said Proposition 1A contains more taxpayer protections than any bond he’s seen before. It caps money spent on administrative costs at 2.5 percent and prohibits spending more than 10 percent of the money until matching funds are secured.
Morshed said the bulk of the project’s costs won’t come due for at least 10 years.
“We all have to bet that our economy is good enough 10 years form now to be able to afford that,” he said. “If you're not that optimistic, we should probably just leave town.”