| California High-Speed Rail | |
|---|---|
| Info | |
| Locale | California |
| Transit type | High-speed rail |
| Daily ridership | 91-95 million yearly (CHSRA projection)[1] |
| Website | www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov |
| Operation | |
| Operator(s) | TBD |
| Technical | |
| Top speed | 220 mph (350 km/h)[3] |
The California High-Speed Rail project is a planned high-speed rail system in the state of California and headed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Initial funding for the project was approved by California voters on November 4, 2008, with the passage of Proposition 1A authorizing the issuance of US$9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for the project. The CHSRA is currently tasked with completing final planning, design, and environmental efforts. The system would serve major cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale, Anaheim, Irvine, Riverside, and San Diego.
The cost of the initial San Francisco-to-Anaheim segment was originally estimated by the CHSRA to be US$35.7 billion (2009$) or US$42.6 billion,[4] but a revised business plan released in November 2011 by the CHSRA put the cost at US$65.4 billion (in 2010 dollars) or US$98.5 billion (in "inflated" dollars based on future inflation predictions). An implementation plan approved in August 2005 estimated that it would take eight to eleven years to "develop and begin operation of an initial segment of the California high-speed train."[5] It will also share tracks with Caltrain and Metrolink using a quadruple track configuration.
On December 2, 2010, the CHSRA board voted to begin construction on the first 54 mi (87 km) of the system 3 mi (4.8 km) south of Madera at Borden, and continue through downtown Fresno to Corcoran.[6] On December 20, 2010, with the infusion of an additional US$616 million in federal funds reallocated from states that canceled their high-speed rail plans, the initial segment of construction was extended to Bakersfield. Another $300 million was reallocated on May 9, 2011, extending the funded portion north to the future Chowchilla Wye, so that the train can be turned. Construction is expected to begin in September 2012.[7]
Contents |
| Proposed route | |
|---|---|
|
Legend
|
The system will extend from San Francisco and Sacramento, via the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire. Proposed stations are shown on the right,[9] with stations on the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles-Anaheim route given in bold.[10] San Diego officials have expressed desire to have the route potentially extend to its South Bay cities and border with Tijuana to capitalize on the economic opportunities.[11] On July 2, 2009, U.S. transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced extension of the California high-speed rail Desert Xpress corridor to Las Vegas, Nevada.[12]
Federal and state funds of $6 billion are available to complete a 130-mile initial construction segment from Merced to Bakersfield in the Central Valley by 2017. If $25-27 billion more funding can be obtained, an initial section either from Merced to the San Fernando Valley or from San Jose to Bakersfield could be operational by 2021. A one-seat ride between Los Angeles/Anaheim and San Francisco could be operational by 2030 for an additional $48 billion. Full Phase I, or Phase II, which would add extensions to Sacramento and San Diego, is envisioned to be operational by 2033 or later.[13]
One issue initially debated was the crossing of the Diablo Range via the Altamont Pass or the Pacheco Pass to link the Bay Area to the Central Valley. On November 15, 2007, CHSRA staff recommended that the High Speed Rail follow the Pacheco Pass route because it is more direct and serves both San Jose and San Francisco on the same route, while the Altamont route poses several engineering challenges such as crossing the San Francisco Bay. Some cities along the Altamont route, such as Pleasanton and Fremont, opposed the Altamont route option, citing concerns over possible property taking and increase in traffic congestion.[14] However, environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have opposed the Pacheco route because the area is less developed and more environmentally sensitive than Altamont.[15]
On December 19, 2007, the CHSRA Board agreed to proceed with the Pacheco Pass option.[16] Pacheco Pass was considered the superior route for long-distance travel between Southern California and the Bay Area, although the Altamont Pass option would serve as a good commuter route. The CHSRA plans conventional rail improvements for the Altamont corridor, to complement the high-speed project.
The CHSRA projects that construction of the system will create approximately 150,000 construction jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs by creating new commuters that will use the system.[4]
The CHSRA projects that the Los Angeles-San Francisco route will generate a net operating surplus of US$2.23 billion by 2023,[4] consistent with the experience of other high-speed intercity operations around the world.[17] Even Amtrak's semi-high-speed Acela Express service generates an operating surplus that is used to cover operating expenses of other lines.[18] Generally fast trains are more profitable than slow trains since shorter travel time reduces staff costs and customers are willing to pay higher ticket prices for shorter travel times.
Since the trains will be completely grade-separated, there is no threat of interfering with automobile and pedestrian traffic. The project also involves grade-separation for existing rail lines with which it will share rights-of-way along part of its length, further improving safety on these lines and eliminating car traffic delays.
Since high-speed trains based on fossil-fuel electricity generation use one-third the energy of airplanes per person and a fifth of that used by cars with one person,[19] California High-Speed Rail will eliminate 12 billion pounds (5.5 million tonnes) of greenhouse gas emissions each year by reducing passenger car and airplane use. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million vehicles from the state's roads and freeways. It will lessen California's dependence on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year.
The CHSRA projects that the system will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."[4]
In September 2008, Reason Foundation (a non-profit public policy think tank), the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Citizens Against Government Waste groups published "The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report". The report projected that the final cost for the complete system would be $65.2 to $81.4 billion (2008$). This is significantly higher than estimates made for the CHSRA by Parsons Brinckerhoff, a British construction firm. It also projected fewer riders by 2030 than officially estimated: 23.4 to 31.1 million intercity riders a year instead of the 65.5 to 96.5 million forecast by the CHSRA and later confirmed by an independent peer review.[20] The report stated that no existing high-speed rail train currently meets the proposed speed and safety goals, although the safety systems have not been fully specified, and that the reduction in CO2 emissions would be inconsequential. The time required to reach the proposed speeds, the distances between stops, and the fact that for part of the route the high speed trains will travel on regular freight train tracks rather than upgraded high speed rail tracks indicates that attaining the proposed speeds would be difficult between the majority of stops.[21]
The Legislative Analyst's Office published recommendations on May 10, 2011, which they said will help the high–speed rail project be developed successfully. They recommended that the California legislature seek flexibility on use of federal funds and then reconsider where construction of the high–speed rail line should start. They also recommended that the California legislature shift responsibility away from the CHSRA and fund only the administrative tasks of the CHSRA in the 2011-12 budget.[22]
The CHRSA released a revised business plan for the system on November 1, 2011, with a new cost estimate of US$65.4 billion (in 2010 dollars), almost double the initial budget of US$33 billion (in 2008 dollars) approved by referendum, along with a revised completion date was pushed from 2020 to 2033.[23] The estimated constructions costs for an alternative amount of highway and airport construction was also increased from approximately US$80 billion to US$170 billion . This latest price estimate by CHSRA of US$98.5 billion also says the ultimate price could go as high as US$117.5 billion, depending on route and construction features.
The Legislative Analyst's Office published a new report in December 2011 indicating that the incremental development path outlined by CHSRA may be illegal. According to the State Analyst, "Proposition 1A identifies certain requirements that must be met prior to requesting an appropriation of bond proceeds for construction. These include identifying for a corridor, or a usable segment thereof, all sources of committed funds, the anticipated time of receipt of those funds, and completing all project-level environmental clearances for that segment. Our review finds that the funding plan only identifies committed funding for the ICS (San Joaquin Valley segment), which is not a usable segment, and therefore does not meet the requirements of Proposition 1A. In addition, the HSRA has not yet completed all environmental clearances for any usable segment and will not likely receive all of these approvals prior to the expected 2012 date of initiating construction."
In January 2012, a peer review group published a report recommending the Legislature not approve issuing $2.7 in bonds.[24]
On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A, a measure to construct the initial segment of the network. The measure provides $9 billion for the construction of the core segment between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim, and an additional $950 million for improvements on local railroad systems, which will serve as feeder systems to the planned high-speed rail system.
Financing plans to complete the initial segment require as-yet-unsecured support from federal and local governments, as well as significant investment from the private sector. In a plan developed by the CHSRA in conjunction with Goldman Sachs, the federal commitment was expected to be $12 to $16 billion, while private investors would invest up to $7.5 billion, leaving an additional $10 billion to come from local governments.[25] Construction costs are projected to be approximately $42.6 billion (year of expenditure). The CHSRA projects the initial operating segment to produce a budget surplus which will be used to finance extensions to Sacramento and San Diego.
On October 2, 2009, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled California's official application for ARRA high-speed rail stimulus funding. The total amount of the application was $4.7 billion, representing more than half of the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail. The application included:
On January 28, 2010, the White House announced that California would receive $2.35 billion of its request, of which $2.25 billion was allocated specifically for California High Speed Rail, while the rest was designated for conventional rail improvements.[26]
On October 28, 2010, the federal government awarded the CHSRA a further $900 million for passenger rail improvements, including $715 million specifically for the high speed rail project, but with the requirement that it be used for the Central Valley segments from Merced to Fresno, or Fresno-to-Bakersfield.[27] While the CHSRA recognizes the federal government's desire for the initial segment to be built in the Central Valley, the CHSRA states that it will evaluate the starting segment according to its own criteria. This announcement brings the federal government's funding commitment to high-speed rail projects in California to $4.3 billion.
On December 10, 2010, the Department of Transportation reallocated $1.2 billion in federal high speed rail funding from states that had rejected the stimulus funds, including Wisconsin and Ohio. Nearly half of this funding, $624 million, was redirected to the CHSRA for use on the initial Central Valley leg of the project.[28]
On May 9, 2011, the DOT reallocated $2 billion in federal high speed rail funding from Florida, which had rejected the funding. The DOT awarded $300 million to the CHSRA for a 20-mile extension along the Central Valley Corridor. The work funded in this round will extend the track and civil work from Fresno to the Chowchilla Wye, which will provide a connection to San Jose to the West and Merced to the North.[29] The California High Speed Rail Authority issued a draft Business Plan on November 1, 2011, for public review and comment.[30] The Business Plan will shape the financial and operational implementation of the HSR project, and must be adopted and submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2012 and every two years thereafter.[31]
|
|
|||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||