Waiting for a Speeding Bullet (Train)

Sept. 27, 2008— -- A century and a half after California built its first railroad, the Golden State may be about to launch the most ambitious rail project undertaken by any state: a nearly 800-mile system of bullet trains that can top 200 mph.

On Nov. 4, California voters will decide whether to authorize the sale of $9.9 billion in state bonds to help pay for a 465-mile high-speed rail line linking Anaheim, Los Angeles, Fresno and San Francisco. Planners say it would be the first leg of a system that would complement air travel and eventually include stations in Sacramento, San Diego and Oakland.

Planners say the first trains could be running within six years in some corridors and that the entire 800 miles of track could be completed by 2020 if sufficient financing is available.

"This is the next big thing that's going to transform the state," said the project's executive director, Mehdi Morshed, a former state bridge engineer who likens high-speed rail to construction of the transcontinental railroad and California's freeway system. "I think this will be the beginning of a very big transformation in transportation, not only in California but the nation."

A Field Poll taken in July found that 56 percent of likely voters supported the bond measure, Proposition 1a, and 30 percent opposed it. The telephone survey of 672 likely voters had a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 5.6 percent.

So far, no opposition group has surfaced to pay for a campaign against the proposition.

"We thought about it," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who signed ballot arguments against the proposition. "I checked the cushions behind the sofa and couldn't find $500,000 to jump-start the campaign."

The measure's supporters had raised more than $580,000, most of it from construction and engineering companies, by Sept. 23, far below what they hope to take in.

Despite the lack of organized opposition, the project faces some potential problems that could weaken support.

The state's poor economy and seemingly endless budget deficits could discourage voters from agreeing to take on more debt, although supporters tout the project as a way to create jobs. Paying off the bonds over 30 years with interest would cost about $19.4 billion, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office.

Voters might also be nervous about approving a massive new rail project following the crash of commuter and freight trains Sept. 12 in Los Angeles that killed 25 people. High-speed rail trains, however, wouldn't share tracks with freights.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been hot and cold on the project. He twice supported legislation that postponed sending the bond measure to earlier ballots, but last year wrote an op-ed piece saying high-speed rail would be a "tremendous benefit" for California.

His spokesman, Aaron McLear, says the governor hasn't taken a position on the bond measure. Schwarzenegger did agree to sign a bill adding oversight requirements to the proposal, which supporters said would help persuade voters to support the bonds.

The bullet train project has been on the drawing board for 14 years. A commission formed in 1994 recommended construction of a high-speed train system linking the state's biggest cities.

Legislation passed in 1996 created the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the nine-member board that has been overseeing planning for the trains.

Lawmakers approved the bond measure in 2002. A statewide vote was planned in 2004 and later in 2006, but was postponed both times out of concern that California had more pressing infrastructure needs.

The proposition includes $9 billion for high-speed rail and $950 million for conventional commuter and intercity rail, including trains that would connect with the bullet train system.

Voters in three counties in Washington also will vote this November on a major rail project: a $17.9 billion light rail proposal linking surrounding counties to Seattle and the city's downtown to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The 15-year plan would involve a sales tax increase of 5 cents per $10 purchase.

California's entire 800-mile system is estimated to cost about $45 billion, with the authority counting on federal funding, private investments and some local government money to help cover expenses. About 30 companies or consortiums have expressed an interest in investing in some fashion, Morshed said.

Supporters, citing use of high-speed rail in Europe and Asia, tout it as a proven way to supplement highways and air travel, ease oil use and air pollution and fight global warming as California's population climbs toward a projected 60 million by the middle of this century.

But opponents label the project a boondoggle and say the bond money would be better used for water projects, to expand the state's highway system or to spend more on existing commuter rail service. They warn of big cost overruns, contending the price tag could hit $90 billion.

"We're not against high-speed trains, per se," said Coupal, of the taxpayers group. "At some point, California might be ready, after a little bit more study, to look at different transportation systems and a high-speed rail line might be part of the mix."

He argues that California doesn't have the population density to support a profitable high-speed rail system and that the trains would need state subsidies to keep running.

But Morshed says the authority's ridership projections are based on train use in California and throughout the U.S., not on ridership in more densely populated countries such as Japan.

The authority predicts the high-speed trains, unlike commuter rail, wouldn't need operating subsidies from the state because their fares would be competitive with those for airlines.

"Just look at evidence in other parts of the world," Morshed said. "In every one of those countries, the commuter rail and urban rail and buses are subsidized. In every one of them, the high-speed train service makes money."

Environmental groups' enthusiasm for the project has been dampened by the route proposed for the rail line between the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay area: the Pacheco Pass southeast of San Jose. The Planning and Conservation League says that plan would encourage sprawl, and has filed a lawsuit calling for a more urban and northerly route through the Altamont Pass.

Morshed said the Pacheco Pass would be a more direct route to Southern California, and that the Altamont Pass would draw more fights with cities over construction.

Despite its lawsuit, the league is part of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, which has endorsed the bond measure.

"If Proposition 1a doesn't pass it would be the death knell for high-speed rail for at least a decade and probably forever because it's just going to get too expensive to build," said Stuart Cohen, the coalition's executive director.