We've Only Just Begun
Can California Taxpayers Dodge the Bullet Train?
A lawsuit may derail a project that was suppposed to cost $45 billion and is now $70 billion and counting.
By ALLYSIA FINLEY
California's bullet train was conceived 20 years ago from
Quentin Kopp's infatuation with European high-speed rail. His beautiful
brainchild, however, has since morphed into a monstrosity. Mr. Kopp seems more
and more like the protagonist Victor Frankenstein of literary lore,
disillusioned by what his ambitions have wrought.
Testifying in a lawsuit filed by Kings County, the
84-year-old retired judge of San Mateo County Superior Court says that
California's present high-speed rail plan violates the ballot measure that he
helped craft and voters approved in November 2008. In essence, he argues, the
state pulled a bait-and-switch on voters.
Kings County wants the court to enjoin the release of state
bond funds until the rail authority's plan adheres to the letter of the
initiative. The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in May. If it succeeds, state
taxpayers may finally dodge the bullet train. Without state bond money, the
rail authority has no fuel to burn. So the good news for California—finally—is
that compliance with the initiative's original terms is unlikely if not
impossible.
Still, killing the project outright is not Mr. Kopp's
desire. "I have not changed my position or enthusiasm for high-speed rail
in California," he tells me. On the contrary, the San Franciscan bursts
with paternal pride. In 1994 he sponsored legislation in the state Senate to
study high-speed rail's "desirability and feasibility." Two years
later he introduced the bill establishing the California High-Speed Rail
Authority to design an 800-mile, zigzagging bullet-train route from San Diego
to Sacramento.
From 2006 to 2011, the judge served on the authority's board
of directors, during which time he helped lead the campaign for the ballot
measure that authorized $9 billion in bonds to build the train project. The
initiative mandated that electric trains run every five minutes at peak speeds
that exceed 200 miles per hour; zip between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2
hours and 40 minutes; and operate without a subsidy.
The rail authority's campaign literature promised that the
train would cost $45 billion and be financed primarily by the feds and private
investors. Mr. Kopp insists that the rail authority rigorously studied the plan
before presenting it to voters. The initiative passed by a five-point margin in
November 2008.
Over the next two years, the Obama administration gave
California $3.5 billion in grants tied to matching state funds on the condition
that the state build the first segment in the sparsely populated Central
Valley.
Mr. Kopp says the Central Valley was chosen because the
flat, open expanse was the best place to test trains to ensure they were
"technologically sufficient." The Central Valley also happens to be
represented by Democratic Rep. Jim Costa, whose vote was crucial for passing
ObamaCare in March 2010. Mr. Costa campaigned for re-election later that year
by trumpeting the thousands of jobs high-speed rail would create in his
district, where the unemployment rate exceeded 17%.
Meanwhile—in response to mounting criticism from the state
legislative analyst's office and others that the business plan was
unrealistic—the rail authority produced a revised plan in November 2011 that
raised the train's price tag to $100 billion.
Golden State voters were incensed. To mollify them, Gov.
Jerry Brown instructed the authority to whittle the cost down to roughly $70
billion by developing a plan for a "blended system." This new plan,
adopted in April 2012, would electrify commuter rail in the Bay Area—which had
long been on the wish-list of local politicians and transit agencies—in lieu of
building dedicated tracks for high-speed trains.
Mr. Kopp says that such a system "bastardizes"
high-speed rail. Passengers traveling between San Francisco and Anaheim would
have to change trains twice—once in San Jose and again in Los Angeles—which
violates the letter of the ballot initiative. Trains would also run at most
every 15 minutes, not every five minutes as required by the initiative.
According to Mr. Kopp, 10 trains must run per hour during
peak times to support the authority's ridership forecasts and operate without a
subsidy. He insists that "the money will come," but only if the train
is built according to the original plan.
Right now, however, the state doesn't have enough money on
hand even to electrify the first 130 miles of tracks from Madera to
Bakersfield. Private firms have refused to invest in the project without a
subsidy or revenue guarantee, both prohibited by the initiative.
There's also some not trivial concerns about safety. To meet
the law's required 2 hours and 40 minutes travel time, the rail authority
intends for the train to barrel through the Central Valley and Tehachapi
Mountains, which are transversed by a fault line, at 220 mph.
Mr. Kopp believes that these speeds are feasible. But the
fastest train in the world, which runs between Paris and Strasbourg, France, tops
out at just under 200 mph. The Chinese reduced their bullet trains' maximum
speeds to about 190 mph after a train going 217 mph crashed in Wenzhou two
years ago. Forty passengers were killed, and hundreds were injured.
According to a recent study by the Reason Foundation, if the
California authority assumed top speeds of 200 mph, averaging 150 mph through
rural areas—as is consistent with the National Research Council's safety
recommendations—the bullet train's travel time would increase to between 3 hours
and 50 minutes and 6 hours. It takes about six hours to drive and an hour to
fly from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Even so, Mr. Kopp insists that the bullet train could make
the L.A. to San Francisco trip in 2 hours and 40 minutes and operate without a
subsidy—but only if the state sticks to the plan approved by voters in November
2008. And what about studies that have found only two high-speed rail lines in
the world break even?
"I've heard that," he says. "But I don't
believe it."
No comments:
Post a Comment