Proposition 1: High-Speed Passenger Rail

The idea of a high-speed train, like those used in Europe and Japan, traveling through California is intriguing. This November California voters will get to chose. Proposition 1 asks voters to authorize a $9.95 billion general obligation bond. The $9.95 billion is approximately one quarter the overall projected project costs ($40 billion) and the difference ($30 billion) would be funded by a combination of private enterprise and federal money. Proposition 1 would build an initial high-speed rail core route from San Francisco to Los Angeles, with the possibility to expand north of San Francisco and south of Los Angeles at a later time.

While my initial reaction is to support high-speed rail, deeper consideration leaves me concerned about the following:

• Will the project only cost $40 billion?
• Are ridership estimates accurate?
• Will trains reach projected speeds and provide considerable time savings over air travel?
• Will prices be competitive with air travel for this route?

In answering the four questions posed above the Reason Foundation has provided sound analysis in a recently released report. Their analysis as well as estimates from previous rail projects here in Los Angeles County indicate:

• Project costs will likely far exceed the initially projected estimate of $40 billion.
• Ridership estimates are likely inflated.
• High speed rail trains will not reach expected speeds. Nor are they likely provide time savings over an equivalent trip via air travel.
• Final price of ticket is unclear. However, if tickets are priced in order to meet projected operations costs they will likely be at least as expensive as air travel.

I grew up along east coast and watched Amtrack and other rail providers struggle to achieve ridership projections. In fact, Amtrack’s high speed Acela train, between Washington D.C. and Boston (traveling through New York City), has much higher population densities than the San Francisco to Los Angeles route. Yet Acela still struggles to achieve needed ridership levels to make the line profitable. If high speed rail transit is not profitable, and does not garner needed ridership in the northeast, our country's historic core for rail transit, then why would it work between San Francisco and Los Angeles?

These concerns, as well as the risks outlined in bullets above, lead me to doubt that a California High-Speed Rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco is a feasible project. My vote will reflect that.

-----
Unlike San Francisco to Los Angeles, a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Diego is a better idea. That line would almost certainly garner the needed ridership and provide travel time savings over comparable trip by air (or car). Unfortunately, local opposition stopped that project segment in its tracks years ago.