DANIEL KRAUSE: High-speed rail: A train to somewhere
Images
In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion bond measure to build a high-speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Using rail technology that is successful throughout the world, it would permit a one-seat train ride from downtown L.A. to San Francisco in less than three hours. The first segment is fully funded and shovels should start turning in the Central Valley next year. However, a report from the California Legislative Analyst's Office, released on Tuesday, threatens to wreck the project forever.
The LAO's report makes some good points -- the California High-Speed Rail Authority should work closely with Caltrans to leverage expertise on large transportation projects. But the LAO is critical of the decision to start by laying tracks from Bakersfield to Madera, even though that's clearly on the route between L.A. and the Bay Area.
The Central Valley is a smart place to start. In such flat, open terrain, a high-speed train can accelerate to 220 miles per hour and maintain that speed for nearly the whole segment, demonstrating its full potential. Anywhere else on the project, curves, hills and other restrictions will require the train to slow.
The LAO seems to echo the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank that is ideologically opposed to government spending on rail. The Reason Foundation calls the first segment a "train to nowhere." But the moniker misses the point: a high-speed train is still a train. They have extremely powerful engines that run on high voltages, they are aerodynamic, and the tracks are straight and precise to permit 220-mph operations. But slow one down and connect it to a diesel locomotive, and it can continue on Amtrak's existing statewide network.
Amtrak currently takes three hours to get from Bakersfield to Madera. A high-speed train, running on high-speed track, will take 45 minutes. That means this first segment offers the most speed improvement for the money. At Madera, northbound high-speed trains can slow to conventional speeds and continue to the Bay Area and Sacramento on existing track. So "train to nowhere" is a nice catch phrase, but it's nonsense.
The LAO is urging the rail authority to look again at building a train from Anaheim to L.A. and San Jose to San Francisco in the first phase. Both routes are too short for a high-speed train to get up to speed. They are also very costly per mile to construct. It makes more sense to use the initial pot of money to build as much high-speed track as possible so we can reduce travel times dramatically. So these segments, while important, offer the least bang for the buck in the short run.
A few months ago, Florida nixed its high-speed rail project, creating a windfall for California and other states. The LAO, by publishing a report this late in the game about a technology they don't seem to grasp, wants us to follow Florida's failed footsteps. Their suggestions could delay or wreck California's project to the point that those funds will end up going to the Northeast. The LAO needs to focus on legislative issues, not play with trains.
Daniel Krause is the executive director of Californians for High Speed Rail, a statewide grass-roots nonprofit advocating for the high-speed rail project approved by voters in 2008.
