Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood asserts (Letters, May 24) that, "Years of planning, analysis and careful consideration have shown that a high-speed rail backbone through the Central Valley connecting Northern and Southern California will draw substantial ridership, attract private investment and ensure future profitability of the system."
Why, then, is his own Federal Railroad Administration, even when prodded by a Freedom of Information Act request, unable to produce even one cost-benefit analysis to support its proposed expenditures on high-speed rail in California, or elsewhere?
Gabriel Roth
The Independent Institute
Oakland, Calif.
#############
So, we know that the FRA has done no cost-benefit studies for high-speed rail development but is going ahead anyhow, throwing money at what it calls high-speed rail projects around the country. That fact alone is reason to shut it down at the federal level. Of course, as we've said repeatedly, it's not about the train; it's about political pork; that is, the money.
Just to deal with LaHood's claims, for which there is no evidence whatsoever-- If ever built and operational, especially in the Central Valley, it will draw remarkably few people, there will be no private investment since there are no surplus revenues, and therefore there can be no profitability.
As called for in the article below, a number of us have been calling for a referendum to put Proposition 1A back on the ballot for a re-vote since the voters were bamboozled the first time. We certainly haven't been getting the rail system that they promised.
That won't happen, unfortunately. And, our HSR-loving governor won't terminate this huge money waster either.
The article below is from Manteca, a town in the Central Valley of California on (or near) the intended HSR route. As you can see, they are not too happy with what's hanging over their heads either. It's safe to say that most of the high-speed rail enthusiasts who lust for California to spend itself into oblivion to acquire this rail system don't live near any of the proposed rail routes.
The author of the article below, D. Wyatt, also thinks that HSR makes a terrible expenditure IF the issue were actually transit (which it isn't). He suggests diverting these funds to regional commuter transit. That, of course, won't happen. The reason is that these funds are only intended to APPEAR like they are for transit, when actually they are political pork for appropriate congressional districts and for the CHSRA Board's political croneys.
Perhaps the most important question Mr. Wyatt asks is: "does it make sense for California?" Well, although the rail authority will tell us that this will be the salvation of California, the real answer has to be "no." Why? Because that question has never been asked or realistically answered in terms of transit and transportation; only as the cure for all our ills. That's not good enough.
==============================
dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
209-249-3519
Put high speed rail back on the state ballot
Make no doubt about it. High speed rail is sexy.
And it should be able to move large volumes of people between Los Angeles and San Francisco quickly and reduce the crowded skies in the corridors between those two cities.
That, however, is where the sure things end.
High speed rail is expensive and could drastically alter life, farming, and business along proposed corridors. In that respect, it isn’t much different than the interstate system. But the real problem is that high speed rail was pitched to the voters in a complete vacuum.
Would spending $65 billion on transportation infrastructure improvements made more sense if:
• it was spent instead on blanketing major California cities with light rail systems?
• instead of high speed rail if the existing system was upgraded with double tracking and such with a number of trains added – a California version of Amtrak if you will – so passenger trains would serve far more cities?
• much of it was spent upgrading our deteriorating freeway and highway system?
• a combination of the above was done along with targeted high speed rail lines serving urban commute corridors such as Riverside-San Bernardino counties to Los Angeles, Sacramento to San Francisco and the Northern San Joaquin Valley to San Jose?
The environmental documents for the high speed rail project won’t really address those alternatives because it is moving forward as a focused – and arguably – one dimensional transit project.
High speed rail is a game changer.
But as it is being developed – even though the first segment proposed for construction will create a train to nowhere until other portions of the system are built – the system essentially will serve Los Angeles to San Francisco travelers.
Has anyone noticed that most of these people don’t really need public transportation? Besides it is already being provided by the private sector in the form of passenger flights.
Yes, we are told, it eventually may go to Sacramento and San Diego. But that’s not what is driving high speed. It is also the Los Angeles-San Francisco corridor that is already more than adequately served by intercity transit options whether it is by air, by road, or by rail.
And how will this help the state’s economy? We are being told, essentially, that it will stimulate the economy. Since no goods are moving by high speed rail they must be referring to two things - the short-term benefactors that are off-shore manufacturers of high speed rail train and the wild card potential for accelerating growth in places such as Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield.
How it would do this, of course, is for segments of the long-haul high speed rail system to turn into glorified commuter lines. There is no other way that high speed rail could possibly stimulate growth as they claim since taking tourists and travelers out of cars would further ravish one of the most impoverished areas in the United States – the San Joaquin Valley.
So high speed rail – in the future when the economy overheats again – could make long-range commuting from Fresno, Bakersfield, and Merced to the Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Area pencil out.
If you think that is daffy, ask yourselves what your grandparents would have thought of a two-hour commute from San Jose to Stockton twice a day for five days a week just so you could afford a home to raise your family. Get that ticket down to $50 round-trip from southern valley cities on a commute like that and the time could come when the economy shifts into hyper drive where it will stimulate growth far away from urban cities to meet their labor demands.
Anyone who thinks someone is going to live in a transit village in Bakersfield and commute to LA is nuts. Of course that will mean more cars and more congestion in the valley.
Whether valley farms are on the money with their “Looks like high speed rail smells like pork” billboards or the high speed rail advocates are doing the right thing is a question that can’t be answered until California spends somewhere in the neighborhood of $65 billion or so.
That is why fast tracking high speed rail as the best bets for California’s transportation future as being the only option ever presented to voters was downright irresponsible.
Before the election the debate centered around the future and whether we can afford it. After the election to authorize the bonds the debate shifted to where it should have been in the first place – does it make sense for California?
It is time for the California Legislature to step up and act like leaders. They need to put the high speed rail back on the ballot and ask people whether they want to continue or pull the plug now. If it passes a second time, end of debate.
