Skip to main content

California high speed rail to … Corcoran?

Ethan Elkind, director, Climate Program at Berkeley Law | December 6, 2010

The saga of high speed rail in California continues.  Since state voters approved a bond measure in 2008 to authorize construction of a system linking north and south, the California High Speed Rail Authority has faced lawsuits over its unfortunate planned route away from the population centers of the northern Central Valley, opposition from wealthy suburbanites south of San Francisco to the portion that would link the city to San Jose, and a huge funding shortfall to build the system that was originally envisioned.

High speed railPerhaps this explains why the rail authority has now officially approved the first segment of high speed rail from Madera to Corcoran in the Central Valley, with a station in Fresno. Actually, the line begins somewhere near Madera, but not in Madera (sorry, Maderans). So for the millions thousands of commuters fighting traffic from Hanford to Madera, you can breathe a sigh of relief that $4.15 billion worth of help is coming your way.

Why this segment? The unfortunate answer is that the system doesn’t have the money it needs to be built, and the Rail Authority now must act quickly to use existing federal dollars before they expire. This largely pointless section of high speed rail can be built quickly because nobody lives there to complain and the route doesn’t have the construction hassles associated with building in an urbanized area. I’m also told it’s a good place to start testing some of the equipment for the rest of the line.

What should have happened? Ideally, the first segment would link densely populated employment and housing centers. My choice would have been an Anaheim to downtown Los Angeles route. The Authority could build that segment, have some of the 13 million people living nearby actually use it and like it, and then hope that those riders would clamor to have the rail line extended to other places they want to go, like Bakersfield, Sacramento, and San Francisco. You would have a built-in political constituency to support future efforts toward expansion.

I understand this more logical segment in Southern California (and a similar segment from San Francisco to San Jose in the north) is too expensive and time-consuming to build first. But the danger now is that the “starter section” serves no one and becomes a $4 billion boondoggle. Los Angeles tried the starter line approach with its subway when faced with similar funding problems and community opposition. But at least the first four miles of the Los Angeles subway served downtown Los Angeles and Union Station, and not Pacoima to Chatsworth. Two decades later, the 18 mile subway is finally poised to expand to critical population centers to the west, and the viability of the first segment created the political demand for expansion.

My concern is that, in a rush to get funding and construction started, the High Speed Rail Authority may have created a long-term political disaster that could prove fatal to the system. Perhaps the safer bet would have been to raise funds and support for a more viable first segment, even if it damaged the overall financial picture for the rest of the system.  With a successful first segment, you could undertake the long-term fight necessary to expand the system statewide.  This fight is coming anyway, because the private sector and state and federal government simply don’t have the resources to build what Californians want right away.  But with this decision, it looks like high speed rail is in danger of coming off the tracks.

Cross-posted from Legal Planet.

Comments to “California high speed rail to … Corcoran?

  1. Okay, Malthus missed a few things. So did the CA legislature in forming the CAHSR Authority in 1996. Mobility is a complex issue in CA and around the world. Many technologies are evolving to meet our insatiable need/desire to go somewhere. Hardly one sentence has been written about these evolving technologies by the original CAHSR Authority of 1996 or today’s advocates of CAHSR.

    For, example, when the CA legilature created the CAHSR Authority, the phrase “information highway” was popular. Today, we have a worldwide wet for moving people, their ideas, their services. A technology that wasn’t present then is routinely at our fingertips today.

    The other day, CA Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani (17th District) held a hearing in Madera to continue airing CA Agriculture’s many concerns about the rail project’s impact on Central Valley farming. Where was the assemblymember? She was in Sacramento. She attended her own meeting via Skype.

    A problem with the CAHSR project, besides being under priced, under funded and over committed with respect to benefits, is that it’s a single point design for a multi point mobility problem.

    As such, it fails to account for the evolution of other transportation technologies. We may want to focus on a comprehensive approach to regional mobility issues. Perhaps we’ll choose to spend our limited public funds on projects that serve the urbanites and suburbanites while we impatiently wait for the automobile industry get its butt in high gear developing tomorrow’s technology, as should be demanded by today’s public.

  2. High speed rail service may seem expensive at first, but the enourmous economic gain will be felt for generations to come.

    Consider this: Is the Proposed Trans Global Highway a solution for future population concerns and global warming?

    One excellent solution to future population concerns as well as alleviating many of the effects of potential global warming is the Frank Didik proposal for the construction of the “Trans Global Highway”. The Didik proposed Trans Global Highway would create a world wide network of standardized roads, railroads, water pipe lines, oil and gas pipelines, electrical and communication cables. The result of this remarkable, far sighted project will be global unity through far better distribution of resources, including heretofore difficult to obtain or unaccessible raw materials, fresh water, finished products and lower global transportation costs.

    With greatly expanded global fresh water distribution, arid lands could be cultivated resulting in a huge abundance of global food supplies. The most conservative estimate is that with the construction of the Trans Global Highway, the planet will be able to feed several billion more people, using presently available modern farming technologies. With the present global population of just under 7 billion people and at the United Nations projection of population increase, the world will produce enough food surpluses to feed the expected increased population for several hundred years.

    Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous dire food shortage predictions of 1798 and his subsequent books, over the next 30 years, failed to take into consideration modern advances in farming, transportation, food storage and food abundance. Further information on the proposed Trans Global Highway can be found here.

  3. It seems like all logical alternatives for the route seem off the table. It’s to bad we cannot use the funds to link existing tracks between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. Your alternative is a good one too. I guess political expediency takes precedence.

  4. I lived in WA state when they first proposed then implemented a rail system to take people where no one wanted to go. The bill got passed and millions of dollars were wasted. I think we may have the same situation here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *