Out Of Their Minds: High-Speed Rail Lowdown
From February 2007
Community Comments
High-Speed Rail Lowdown
State officials have been working for more than a decade on a plan to build a high-speed rail system in California. A measure to provide almost $10 billion in bond funding was placed on, and then removed from, the ballot in 2004 and then again in 2006. The measure is expected to go before voters in November 2008.As envisioned, the almost $35 billion system would first link Los Angeles and the Bay Area, with trains traveling up to 220 mph in a 2.5 hour trip. Eventually it would involve 700 miles of track linking other major population centers, including San Diego, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley and Sacramento.
Supporters say the high-speed trains will be cheaper for long trips than other major transportation alternatives such as cars or planes, and the system will be profitable, not costing the taxpayers any funds in the long run. Opponents say the trains are far too expensive, will not get the ridership that supporters expect and could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Harrison Sheppard breaks it down for us.
Quentin Kopp
Chairman, California High Speed Rail Authority
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
Can you outline the parameters of the system and its benefits?“It’s less expensive than trying to build freeways to accommodate an estimated 50 million people in the next 25 years.
“The initial segment from Los Angeles Union Station to the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, comprising approximately 430 miles, involves an estimated cost of $20 billion.
“The entire system will comprise over 700 miles, from San Diego to Sacramento, at a cost of approximately $35 billion.”
That sounds expensive. How is it funded?
“It is being funded as any capital improvement should be — by general obligation bonds. (The first bond for $10 billion) will provide approximately one-half of the estimated L.A.-to-San Francisco segment costs, with subsequent bond issues at such time as the money will actually be spent.”
The bond was delayed twice. Doesn’t that indicate a lack of political will for the project?
“No, it indicates a priority conferred upon those (infrastructure) bond issues in the most recent election.
“I am pleased it was postponed until 2008. Had it been on the ballot with some $50 billion in bond issues, its likelihood of passage would have been less.”
Has it worked in other countries?
“Yes, it has. France has celebrated 25 years of operation without a fatality and intends to establish a new record speed of approximately 330 miles per hour. That’s not an operating speed, but demonstrates the capacity.
“Japan, which opened high-speed rail for the 1964 Olympics, now has over 1,500 miles of high-speed operation. (It has worked) in Germany, Spain, Italy, Taiwan and South Korea.
“It’s been successful financially, operated by private corporations or consortiums, generating profit as much as 30 percent.”
So there is no operating subsidy from the state?
“Our business plan contemplates no operating subsidy. The state of California will build the facility, and it will then be put out to bid for private operation, following the models used in France, Germany, Spain and Italy.”
What would a ticket from Los Angeles to San Francisco cost?
“Approximately $50 one way. It’s cheaper and faster than any short-haul air route.
Will the state get its investment of $35 billion back?
“Yes. That will be paid from the net profit. And the business plan estimates it will be accomplished in as short a time as 10 years.”
What technology will the trains use? Maglev?
“No. Steel-on-steel. We’re not experimenting with magnetic levitation, which is operating commercially on only one short 20-mile run from Shanghai airport to Shanghai.”
“There won’t be any more freeways built. People won’t tolerate more freeways, and people won’t tolerate airport expansions. There have been no freeways built as a matter of public policy for at least 10 years.”
William L. Garrison
Professor emeritus, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley
www.its.berkeley.edu
Why do you think high-speed rail would not work in California?
“The railroad as a passenger transportation is an aging technology, despite the whistles and bells. It no longer fits the travel patterns of modern society. It will require buckets of subsidy forever. It will make us all poorer for very low return.”
So you think there is no market for ridership?
“(Hypothetically) there’s a market for pink elephants on roller skates. So (high-speed rail) will get some market. The issue is how much of a financial drain it will be.
“You’re buying a dead end. If you buy into a transportation system at the start then it can be improved. But the high-speed rail is a limited technology. You’re buying something that cannot get any better, and in fact will get worse, because you have a monopoly management, which is not really responsive to the public despite being good at being responsive to the politicians.
“The management reacts less to the real market and more and more to what the politicians think. And it’s an impossible situation. It’s exactly what’s happened in transit. We just go up, and we need more subsidies.”
Supporters say the system will not require an operating subsidy.
“It will require an operating subsidy. A terrible, horrendous infusion. It will make us all poorer, and then they’ll lie to us and say something like, well the money’s coming from Washington, so we’re not paying for it.”
What about safety?
“From a technology point of view, you’re operating on almost one line, so things do go bang. And when they do, it’s very spectacular.
“You may well have a system that’s relatively safe, if you look at the number of passenger miles and things like that. But a few spectacular accidents could make it appear to be unsafe. It’s the same problem the air transportation system has.
“That could be enough to make the investment somewhat risky, because if spectacular accidents occur early on it could dampen any market for it at all.”
Where do you think we should be investing, instead?
“I think we ought to be thinking about investing in a system that would open pathways to development. Instead, the politicians and so-called cultural thinkers say let’s invest in what our grandfathers had because everybody got along better back then.
“To give you an example: There are a lot of stories about the high cost of living in California and about the out-migration. Why not build transit that runs up the coast through the foothills to the mountains, and let the state go up there? Why not open up all that country that’s unsettled?
“High-speed rail would be trying to get the last bit of blood out of a turnip, as opposed to opening up new development opportunities.”
The Magazine
Site Links
Prosper Plus +
- Get Prosper Plus to receive e-mail alerts, special event invites, and content that interests you.
Community
- Join the Community and start participating. It's fast. It's easy. It's free.
Advertise on this site! Show your support for the Prosper Network and reach influential thought leaders and web users like yourself. Contact us to find out how.
© 2004-2007 Prosper Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
The materials on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Prosper Media, LLC.
Community Comments