A Third Look at California’s High-Speed Rail Project
Ben Adler | Tue, Dec 2nd, 2008 | Category: Commentary | City: Los Angeles | Tags: los angeles, california, trains, congestion, ben adler, proposition 1a, high speed rail
This piece originally ran on CampusProgress.org
Conventional wisdom holds that as California goes, so goes the nation, in ten or twenty years. The suburbs exploded first in California, and today the average American drives 29 miles in a day—a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. But California, once a leader in suburban growth, now seeks to become a leader in alternative transportation.
On Election Day, California passed Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion state bond for a high speed rail line linking northern and southern California. The proposed rail line would allow passengers to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours, far faster than the current option on Amtrak. It would also link cities that are closer to each other, such as Sacramento to San Francisco and San Diego to L.A. Supporters hope that it would attract people who currently fly or drive those distances, and thereby reduce traffic and pollution. Many progressives and smart growth advocates have said that California struck a blow for progressive infrastructure construction.
But I’m not sure I entirely agree. While making the trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco by high-speed rail instead of by flying would save some CO2 emissions, the bigger problem is not that you can’t get from L.A. to San Francisco fast enough by train, it’s that you can’t get around L.A. or San Diego, the nation’s second and eighth largest cities, respectively, without a car.
The rail project will cost substantially more than the $10 billion that the bond invests. Architects of the project estimate that it’s a $42 billion endeavor, with various government agencies kicking in money. That is a large investment, and there might be better ways for California to invest in more locally focused transit and get more environmental bang for its buck.
Of course, mass transit is for more than just the environment: It’s a tool for social justice and mobility. But the idea of long-distance high-speed rail is primarily of interest to business travelers and the relatively wealthy. The people who need subways, trolleys, and buses to get around the fringes of L.A. are poor and working class. Sure, when the Google gang comes down to L.A. they can take the high-speed train instead of flying, but the housekeepers who commute from East L.A. to Westwood by bus or car won’t see their lives change at all.
Even if you’re considering the middle class who might make trips between cities fairly often, high speed rail does little to combat the fact that one cannot get around L.A. or San Diego without a car upon arrival. If people plan to take the train for shorter trips between cities, they may end up needing a car on the other end. For mass transit to really remove auto-dependence it has to connect walkable urban areas.
It’s useful to look at the $42 billion estimated for the high-speed rail project in terms of other public transit projects. The Second Avenue subway line in New York City is projected to cost $16.8 billion to build and will transport 600,000 people daily. That’s 210 million rides per year, many of which are currently carried out by some form of automobile: taxis, cars, or buses. The California high-speed rail line, on the other hand, hopes to have just 55 million trips by 2030. That’s one-third the annual riders for three times the price of construction. What California needs is a Second Avenue Subway equivalent; it may be a network of buses rather than trains, but that seems to me to be the model worth imitating.
I don’t want to set up a false dichotomy between inter-city travel like the high-speed rail initiative and intra-city and commuter transit like city buses; each is beneficial in their own way. But, assuming there is a competition among scarce resources, there must be a healthy debate about not just the need for rail redevelopment in general, but what should be a top priority. High-speed rail is a legitimate social good, and a necessity for economic competition. France and China have high-speed rail lines, and such investments may increase tourism in Northern and Southern California. Ideally, society should embrace supporting both short- and long-distance rail services.
This was the only smart growth ballot initiative on the ballot; there weren’t other initiatives for increasing city transit. The general progressive excitement over the initiative’s success is appropriate, if perhaps out-sized. But the real challenge for Californians—retro-fitting their sprawling suburbs into places where one can live without owning an automobile—still lies ahead.
Ben Adler joins Next American City as an Urban Leaders Fellow based in Washington, D.C. He will be focusing on Washington and the role of the federal government in urban policy. Ben covered the 2008 election and Congress as a staff writer for Politico. Prior to joining Politico Ben was the editor of CampusProgress.org, a daily online political and cultural magazine at the Center for American Progress, a regular contributor to The American Prospect Online and its award-winning blog, TAPPED, and a reporter-researcher at The New Republic. His writing has also appeared in Newsweek, The Washington Monthly, In These Times, The Nation and the websites of The Guardian and The Atlantic among other publications.
![Revise [UPDATED]](http://americancity.org/images/uploads/revise_updated.png)
Den in the West
Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 3:02pm
It’s true, we need both inter and intra city transit, but let’s get one and then the other, I don’t think it matters which order they come in. In any case, L A is finishing the gold line as we speak and there is talk of streetcars as well; I don’t think they are resting on their laurels down there. There is political opposition, and beverly hills opposition, but the general public seems to be on board. San francisco has pretty decent transit by west coast american standards, and from what I’ve read it seems that they are planning a huge transit node around the future high speed rail station. San Diego is another story, but they are bound to wise up in time.
Let’s not dump water on the party, it’s not always possible to do the most important things first.
Josh
Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 7:27pm
And let’s not forget that 1A included $950,000,000 in bond money for connecting transit improvement and expansion.
D in Los Angeles
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:01am
Los Angeles is building a mass transit system fairly quickly. in the last 20 years we have added 73 miles of rail with two more lines opening in 2009 and 2010. The Gold Line extension to East LA, with two underground stations, will open in 2009, is under budget and on time, and the Expo line phase one from downtown LA to Culver City with Stops at USC and along Expo blvd will open in 2010. We also just passed measure R which will fund numerous rail extensions, including but not limited to the Subway extension down Wilshire to Westwood and eventually to Santa Monica, the Downtown Connector subway connecting 7th street metro station to Union station with a few new stops as well, the Crenshaw Line, the Green Line extension to LAX and to Norwalk Metrolink station, the 405 parallel line which will eventually go from the valley, through UCLA and westwood, connect with the purple line, expo and end at LAX, second phase of the expo line from Culver city to Santa Monica, and a two more gold line extensions on either end. On top of this, the matching funding we will get will expedite these lines and free up money for even more rail. A lot of this will be either finished or under construction by the time LA and SF are connected by high speed rail in 2020. The LA that is portrayed in the media is the LA of 10 years ago, the future LA is all about transit and smart, dense development.
Mauricio in Los Angeles
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 2:51am
As one how has lived in Japan a number of years and in Germany, inter-city train transportation is an important part of advancing the large interurban system you have mentioned. Large portions of city transit systems will eventually link up. The BART extension into San Jose and around the bay and Southern California the political will of two staunch opponents of the subway, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are on board with finding ways to relieve the pressing traffic and are trying to find ways to have it go through their respected cities. As for San Diego, the current trolley system already connects far flung areas and is slated for more lines in the coming future. All in all, all of these things will combine hopefully before I die
Dan in Los Angeles
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 5:13am
I’m sorry, I hate to be snarky, but… Ben, did you even do any research?
How could you miss LA County’s passing of Measure R, a $30-40 billion dollar transit initiative, and Santa Clara county’s passing of Measure B, to extend BART to San Jose?
Also, your comparison to the NYC 2nd st. subway is maybe the most absurd comparison I’ve ever heard. As if going from Harlem to Downtown was the same as going the 400 miles from SF to LA.
wac in Los Angeles
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:33am
Thanks to all other commenters. This article just shows that the authors does no nothing about Los Angeles and its current developments. Metro is doing an amazing job. Also.. I just got back from Chicago, and getting around there is by no means easier or faster then most parts of L.A.
Matthew in Los Angeles
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:00pm
Apart from missing Measure R in the article, let’s not forget this major hiccup: when we fly and land in Californian cities, we usually need a car anyway. If you look at this solely as a measure to alleviate our overcrowded airports, rather than try to scrutinize our current mass transit systems, it’s a huge success. More importantly, it will be HUGE for our cities’ downtown revitalization. Having a high-speed rail station downtown is the equivalent--if not more--than having a ballpark. The high-speed rail system will serve as the final straw for the comeback and re-solidification of our cities--the end of our ridiculous concept of “manifest destiny” as meaning a large, lonely house on the range! Go California!
RuFF in Los Angeles
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 1:02pm
Aside from the missing information mentioned above… the author forgot to mention the benefits of people who commute into our inner cities using high speed rail as daily transportation. For example, those that commute from Temecula to San Diego or Riverside, From Industry to Los Angeles, The high Desert (Palmdale) to Los Angeles, etc. Not only that, the benefit of less cars on the highway because of people who choose to take high speed rail rather than their cars. Then we have air routes that can be eliminated in favor of more international routes. Decreased congestion at the airport, less co2 emissions, more frequent and reliable schedules, etc. The jobs, the connectivity. The list goes on and on. This is a big thing for California and an author who obviously knows little about the proposal is smashing it with bull crap statements. 2nd Ave. Subway.. give me a break!
Bennett in Los Angeles
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 1:30pm
As someone who traveled to San Francisco from LA for the holidays and didn’t fly, the need for high speed rail was ever more apparent.
a) Contrary to popular belief (and my disbelief, being a native East Coaster) Amtrak DOES NOT have a direct train from LA -> San Francisco. The best bet is to take a bus to Bakersfield and hop on the train there.
http://amtrakcalifornia.com/rail/go/amtrak/routes/interactive_routes_map/index.cfm
b) The only direct, single fare way to get between them is via bus. And considering 90% of the trip between the Bay area and LA county is measly two lane blacktop each direction, traveling on busy days or in the rain...its completely jammed up in the middle of nowhere.
c) I highly, *highly* suggest any proponents of a California city for a “workable and fully functioning” public transportation system should examine San Francisco. Granted, each California city is different and requires different solutions for different problems...but they all hold the same DNA...sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. Despite having a very limited rapid transportation network, it seems like San Fran is the most adapted for its environment.
Some highlights:
-Bike lanes are abound, and the city actually gives out bike maps with color-coded grading so you can determine if this road will take you up a hill or not (perfect for the Eastside communities). There’s also bike lock racks growing out of the sidewalk everywhere.
It’s freezing cold in San Fran...its always nice here. Why don’t we have more bike lanes?
-Zipcars occupy many gas stations. I actually have a zipcard (because I don’t own a car...more on that later) but they retracted their service and only offer them at USC and UCLA...and I live in Los Feliz. Completely impractical in LA (but I could always use it in other cities).
There should be some incentives for these to be everywhere.
-Two-wheeled parking spaces. Sometime in the past few years, San Fran repainted some parking spaces to fit 5 two-wheeled vehicles. As someone who gave up a car last year and has been riding a motorcycle rain or shine since January, this is huge. You don’t know how many itchy trigger finger LA traffic cops have written me tickets for parking between cars. And yes, I’m sure you car people hate us for zooming in between your cars at high speeds in stopped traffic, but think of it this way: If you could take 5 cars off the road and replace them with two-wheeled vehicles, that could mean the difference for you being able to make a green light, or get off an exit in freeway traffic. Now take a 100 or a 1000 off.
-Real time bus schedules. All major bus lines have digital signs telling you when they’re arriving. Furthermore, you can log on to the website and get realtime updates there as well. We JUST got these in LA subways, but it’s time to put them where we need them the most: on heavily traveled buslines.
Rail Rider in City of Angels
Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 5:28pm
All of this will end up making the “Big Dig” look like a bargain.
The so-called “high speed rail” will end up costing $200B, and it won’t be “high speed”, but all of its parasites will find ways to bless it anyway, just as they insist our billion-dollar busway is “like a train on wheels”, even though it passes every intersection at 10 mph.
The small light-rail and trolley projects and glorified buses that Prop R will fund will achieve little, as all will be dependent on MTA driver/operators, instead of being automated, and the bulk will run in mixed traffic or with promises of “signal priority” and “peak hour lanes” that never appear.
When the people find that the “Subway to the sea” is not being built, when they find that the Sepulveda pass project is a bus, when they find out how useless the billion-dollar “Green Line to LAX” project is, they’re going to be a lot more upset than they were over the Hollywood sinkholes, and the taxaholics will be shocked to find all of their new proposals rejected wholesale at the ballot box.
Jet travel works well in California. Too bad the feds didn’t save El Toro, though with its current financial plight and Superfund status, there still might be time to take it back.