Gutting the HSR Project

The recent concern over AB 3034's emphasis on regional construction and the UP's resistance to sharing its ROW may not be such separate matters after all - once their combined political effect is assessed. And the final piece in this is the State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee's Final High Speed Rail Report which, in my reading, suggests that the core of the HSR project - linking SF to LA - is about to be gutted.

The report argues in its opening summary that recreational and commuter trips are going to make up the bulk of HSR trips. The most revenue is likely to come from business travelers - the folks who have flocked in huge numbers to European HSR lines, and who would dearly love a fast and convenient travel system between LA and SF that helps them avoid crowded airports in favor of wi-fi enabled trains that serve city centers. In fact, the report says that the LA-SF connection is "the most lucrative segment" of the projected route.

So what does the report conclude about how the system should be constructed?

6. Ensure that the Authority stages its construction program so that state funds are used on regional segments of the high-speed rail corridor, before developing the long distance link between the state’s major urban centers, i.e., Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is possible that the rail bond program could be approved by voters before the Authority has an approved financial plan that includes state, federal, and private resources. In that case, it is important that the first expenditures of state money should be used for improving regional travel segments where rights-of-way may be shared with commuter operators, Amtrak, freight railroads, and eventually high-speed rail.

In other words, the State Senate Transportation Committee led by Alan Lowenthal wants to turn the HSR project into commuter rail, and gut the "killer app" aspect of HSR - providing sustainable, non-oil based travel within the state of California. It flies in the face of the stats listed in the study suggesting that the long-distance link is what will make HSR financially viable.

The report raises concerns about ridership and notes that other "mega-projects" have gone over budget, naming the Chunnel, the Big Dig, and the Denver Airport as examples. But nowhere are the successful, on-budget HSR projects mentioned, and nowhere at all are fuel costs or the airline crisis mentioned. It is a document published in 2008 but that reads like something from 2003, or 1995 - almost completely failing to adequately grasp the whole context of the system.

Further, nowhere is the cost of doing nothing examined. As I argued in that post, the cost of not building HSR isn't zero - it's likely to be several times as much as the HSR project alone, once added airport and freeway capacity, fuel costs, lost jobs and lost tax revenue are added up.

Ultimately the report suggests to me that the State Senate Transportation Committee is unserious about HSR. They don't get why this project matters and have not fully assessed the overall context in which HSR would be built and operated. This leads them to head down the path of gutting the HSR project, as suggested above. I'm all for commuter rail, but HSR provided both commuter rail AND intercity rail - which we badly need. Why not do both at once?

The report is not a complete loss. It provides suggestions for risk management and oversight of the CHSRA that are useful. Regarding the UP issue, the report specifically suggests "A venue should be provided to enable the regional commuter rail agencies and the two major freight railroads operating in the state to review and comment on any of the Authority’s plans that would impact their operations," and given the UP's concerns this is a wise suggestion.

But in the report's failure to assess the oil issue, which is putting enormous stress on the state's transportation system and therefore on its economy, the committee has done a disservice to the State Senate and to Californians, particularly in its short-sighted suggestion that the intercity portion of HSR be delayed. This recommendation, when viewed in concert with AB 3034 and the UP's reluctance to share Central Valley ROW, may help create a political atmosphere where HSR's "killer app" - the link from LA to SF - is gutted.

That would be a catastrophe for the state. Californians deserve the chance to vote on the original HSR plan, as they likely have a better understanding of the project and the wider transportation context than do Senators who stunningly did not mention the fuel crisis. Hopefully wiser heads prevail in the State Senate when they debate AB 3034.

Union Pacific's HSR Games

According to an article the LA Times just put up on their website, Union Pacific Railroad is balking at sharing its right of way with high speed trains. For context, the CHSRA plan has always involved building HSR-specific tracks alongside existing rails currently owned by UP, to minimize environmental impacts and disruption to existing urban development. So this has the potential to be a serious problem:

Officials at Union Pacific railroad recently told the California High Speed Rail Authority that they have safety and operational concerns about running a bullet train close to lumbering freight trains.

"Just look at what happened in L.A. a few years ago," said Scott Moore, a Union Pacific vice president, citing the 2005 crash of a Metrolink passenger train that killed 11 and hampered rail operations.

"Those accidents happen."

This rationale is flatly ridiculous. As UP well knows, the accident referred to is the subject of an ongoing trial of Juan Manuel Alvarez who tried to commit suicide by parking his truck on the Metrolink tracks near Glendale. He did this on an at-grade crossing, which will be eliminated as part of the HSR project. And as is the case around the world, the HSR tracks will be fenced off from the public, making it difficult for a similar accident to occur. In fact, accidents of any kind are very rare on HSR systems, and it is very uncommon for HSR trains to hit passenger vehicles.

Further, I know of no specific problems where HSR trains have ever had an issue sharing tracks with any other trains - and I find it interesting that UP had to cite the 2005 Metrolink crash, since they couldn't come up with any actual issues of HSR and freight running in close proximity. Trains commonly share multiple tracks next to each other without any problems.

So we have to ask what UP is really up to with this statement. I believe they are holding out for more money. They've done it before - several years ago Santa Cruz County resolved to purchase the branch line from Pajaro to Davenport, running through Santa Cruz and paralleling Highway 1, from UP. The negotiations dragged on for years as UP tried to overstate the value of the line and get the county to assume responsibility for all repairs of tracks and bridges - and when the county balked, UP threatened to refuse to sell the line. UP's statement may well be a ploy for more money, some role in operations or profits from HSR, or other assurances from CHSRA and the state.

And of course, UP had no objection to - and has benefited greatly from - government-funded projects such as the Alameda Corridor. For them to turn around and try and screw HSR is inconsistent at best. The state and federal governments should play hardball with UP over this - if they continue to drag their feet on negotiating with CHSRA, then perhaps UP doesn't need the Alameda Corridor East, or the Colton flyover, or continued deregulation of the industry.

Some want to believe this is a crisis for HSR. If UP holds firm in its refusal to share ROW, there's always eminent domain, but that would involve a long and drawn-out court process. If the CHSRA has to abandon the ROW-sharing plan, then they'll need to completely redo the environmental impact reports, which could add 3-5 years to the construction time on the project.

That would be inconvenient, but it is long past time for us to get started on HSR. Gas prices and global warming have finally given urgency to HSR, and that should in turn give the public and their representatives the clarity of vision and sense of purpose to ensure that UP doesn't hijack the project for their own concerns. State and federal political leaders need to ramp up the pressure on UP - and we need to do the same. High speed rail is too important for one company - even Union Pacific - to block. We can find ways to assuage their concerns while staying on track to get the high speed rail system approved and under construction by 2010.

California Changing Before Our Eyes

Recycling this for Tuesday June 3 - follow our state election coverage at Calitics

It wasn't really that long ago that rail travel was the primary method Californians used to get around the state - and even around the country. Even into the late 1950s passenger rail was thriving, although facing a growing challenge from airlines and the interstate freeways. By the 1960s and 1970s Californians came to believe that rail was dying and cheap oil would last forever - but the rumors of passenger rail's demise were exaggerated (if not greatly). It's clear now that the late 20th century dismissal of rail's role in transportation was shortsighted and based on temporary conditions like cheap oil, and as Californians watch global warming, congested freeways, and soaring fuel prices, they're reevaluating passenger rail. Ridership on Amtrak California's intercity routes are soaring - standing room only on some trains - making a mockery of claims that there isn't the demand to make high speed rail work:

"In the last three months, we've seen a phenomenal increase in all three corridors," said Bill Bronte, chief of Caltrans' division of rail. "Particularly on the San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor."

For the first seven months of this budget year, which ends in September, ridership is up 13.6 percent on the Capitol Corridor, 11.1 percent on the San Joaquin and 4.7 percent on the Pacific Surfliner compared with last year. The Surfliner, the state's busiest train, carried 2.7 million passengers in the 2007 budget year, while the Capitol Corridor hauled 1.45 million and the San Joaquin carried 805,000.

Such was the focus of a feature article in today's San Francisco Chronicle, Trains gaining as sensible alternative to cars, from where the above quote was taken. Newspapers tend to be lagging indicators, catching up on shifts in public opinion well after they are underway - but they're also helpful in solidfying a narrative - in this case, that Californians now see passenger rail as a valuable, viable part of their transportation infrastructure:

Zac Zacarias, 40, works for Cisco Systems as a financial analyst from his home in El Dorado Hills, near Sacramento, most days. But about twice a week he commutes to Santa Clara for meetings and to show his face. Riding the train not only spares him the frustrations of a long drive through some of the Bay Area's worst chokepoints, it allows him to get some work done.

While on his way home Thursday, Zacarias sat at a table in front of his laptop computer, pecking away and waiting to call in and join a conference call.

"I have a Prius, but I would rather just sit on the train and work - or sleep," he said. "It just depends on what's important to you - time to work, time to sleep or being able to leave when you want."

The frustration for Zacarias is that the trains, which often have to yield to freight trains and occasionally have to stop when there's something on the tracks, are sometimes late - usually, he said, on the trip home.

"The biggest problem is being late," he said, "because everyone wants to get home. Three hours on the train is enough."

Zacarias' arguments show the value of passenger rail, over driving and over flying. Especially considering that high speed rail will have wi-fi service, faster trains on dedicated tracks (i.e. no more yielding to freight) and connects to city centers, there is every reason to believe that Californians will continue to see that passenger rail provides a higher quality transportation experience, whether one's a commuter or a business traveler or riding the train for personal reasons.

And as the article shows, in its stats and its stories, the demand is clearly there for passenger rail. We spend a lot of time talking up the value of passenger rail here but I am beginning to suspect that Californians already grasp this. The key, however, is providing the service - if you build it, they WILL come. This seems to be at the core of the rising ridership on Amtrak California lines - an increase that actually dates to 2005:

Trains have seen year-over-year increases exceeding 9 percent for each of the past 18 months. Eugene Skoropowski, who manages the Capitol Corridor service, says the boom in ridership can be credited to an increased frequency of service as much as to rising gas prices and a desire to escape the tyranny of traffic.

The Capitol Corridor has added a number of new trains and brought new cars into service over recent years - without which the increased ridership would simply not have been possible. HSR would dramatically increase the frequency of passenger rail service in the state and increase the available capacity, which would induce demand (a theory borrowed from freeway planners).

Right now California has ONE train a day that links LA to SF - the Coast Starlight, which takes 10 hours to link LA to San Jose. It too has witnessed soaring demand, despite ongoing problems with freight delays and the slow travel time. Given the underlying conditions - long-term high gas prices, traffic, climate change and pollution - we can expect the HSR line that connects the Bay Area to SoCal to attract a significant, high level of ridership.

But more important than the numbers, more important than the physical capacity and the dedicated rails, is the changing attitude that Californians are exhibiting. We do love ours cars, and I'm no exception - but we're coming to realize that doesn't have to stop us from embracing passenger rail as a method of travel. Californians not only WILL ride trains, they're already doing it. HSR will make those trips more numerous, more easy, and more beneficial to our economy.

High Speed Rail isn't a Toy

A growing phenomenon in media commentary on high speed rail seems to be an embrace of the necessity and value of the system, but an unwillingness to part with 20th century dogma on taxes and government spending in figuring out how to pay for it. We saw that with Bruce Reed's HSR op-ed last week, and we see it today with Thomas Elias' op-ed in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. Elias opens by recounting fast, efficient, and comfortable trips in France on the TGV, and then examines the California plan:

The question: In a day when the state may run a $15 billion deficit or more and when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tried for across-the-board 10 percent budget cuts, how can we afford a massive new toy? Many equate the high-speed train idea to a family that wants to buy a new Ferrari when it can only afford macaroni and cheese for dinner.

But high speed trains may be more than a mere luxury. They can make business travel between urban centers easier and more comfortable, without many of the restrictions and complications terror fears have brought to air travel. They can also restore California's aura of leading the way toward a better lifestyle for all Americans. The trains would be instant tourist attractions, with reservations booked months in advance.

Elias would be a stronger advocate of HSR if he more strongly discounted the "HSR is an expensive toy" claim - in fact, the price of gas is turning ALL cars into Ferraris, at least in terms of cost, and HSR is the affordable mac-and-cheese alternative. Yes, HSR is more comfortable, but it won't be just for tourists and businessmen - it will be the most affordable way for average Californians to visit mom and dad at Christmas, to go to their child's graduation in June, to get to work in the morning. All HSR advocates need to internalize this thinking - our cause is MUCH stronger if we show people that HSR is the affordable workaday transportation solution for the 21st century, instead of taking a "gee whiz" attitude that was outdated even in the 1970s.

That quibble aside, Elias' op-ed is primarily concerned with funding:

These realities suggest the financing plan now proposed, with a conventional bond to be paid off by all state taxpayers, might not be the best way to finance a massive project like high speed rail.

Why should all taxpayers pay for a toy that will be used only by a few? Why should taxes from people in Redding or Chico be used for a rail system that will never approach those cities, even as it serves the likes of Bakersfield, Fresno, Madera and Stockton?

The plain answer is that residents there should not be taxed for this. Nor should poor Californians in Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley or the San Francisco Bay area who will rarely if ever ride these trains. For it is reality that - just as in Europe or Japan - fares on high-speed trains would be considerably higher than on conventional ones.

So unlike dams or highways or public hospitals or sewers, high speed rail should be built neither with general obligation bonds, as now proposed, nor with general fund revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Rather, revenue bonds are the answer. Many an American stadium, toll road, bridge, airport terminal and short-cut tunnel has been built this way, with borrowed money that is eventually paid back by users of the project.

In short, since high-speed rail is not as essential as freeways or ordinary passenger and freight trains, why finance it the same way? Just as air fares are now taxed to pay for increased airport security, high speed rail tickets could be priced to meet bond payments. Just as hotel guests are often taxed to pay for improvements and services intended for tourist use, why not make high speed train riders pay in full for the service they are enjoying?

The framing here is absolutely atrocious. HSR isn't as essential as freeways? Or ordinary passenger trains?! Most Californians will never use it?! While I welcome Elias' support of HSR his assumptions are completely wrong. Freeways are the true luxury - they are an astronomical cost in subsidies, pollution, global warming, congestion, and fuel. Elias wants us to believe that this is "reality" but instead it's a 1970s worldview passed off as fact. Ordinary Californians, including those in the working-classes, use intrastate air travel rather frequently, and will also use HSR frequently - especially as they won't be able to afford air travel or long-distance road travel for much longer.

The reality is that HSR is exactly like a dam, a highway, a public hospital, or a sewer. It will be an essential piece of public infrastructure without which society will have a hard time functioning. Just as the State Water Project in the 1950s enabled the state's economic prosperity of the late 20th century, so too will HSR enable growth and prosperity in the 21st century. Without it the state will be dependent on oil-based transportation that the rest of the world is already abandoning - leaving California uncompetitive and making it difficult to get around the state.

Elias' awful framing aside, I'm not opposed in theory to using a revenue bond to pay for HSR. I have no doubt that HSR will attract enough riders to pay back the bonds. One advantage of a general obligation bond, however, is that it makes it more likely to attract the private investment that state politicians are demanding before they sign off on HSR. Investors see a general obligation bond as a safer risk than a revenue bond, which is especially important against the backdrop of a global credit crunch.

And despite my criticisms of the way Elias is selling HSR, as with Bruce Reed's op-ed I am again pleased that we seem to be moving away from a debate over whether HSR is necessary to one of how we should pay for it. It's a sign of real progress.