I recently had to explain the word "boondoggle" to a South African:
work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value; a public project of questionable merit that typically involves political patronage.
It pains me to say that the current plans for High Speed Rail in California appear to meet this description. It is possible to build an excellent HSR system in this state. Unfortunately, that appears unlikely to happen.
The idea is seductive: travel the 470 miles to the Bay Area from Southern California in 2h 40m. Eliminate the long drive up the spine of the state on interstate 5, and avoid the inconvenience and traffic of the airports. And, do it economically to compete with the low fares of the ubiquitous and successful Southwest Airlines (which ought to be the California State Airline, we all fly it so much.)
The wide spaces of the San Joaquin Valley seem tailor-made for the construction of the dedicated, arrow-straight lines required for high speed rail travel. Connect it at either end with the population centers of the LA basin and the Bay Area, link it to improved regional rail networks with efficient connections to serve as many people as possible, and you've got it.
Only that's not the plan that the HSR Authority has come up with. Cobbled together with political favors and backroom deals and questionable engineering decisions, they have a plan that no one is happy with, except, apparently, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
First, let's consider the engineering. HSR only works if you have straight, dedicated rail lines with very few stops so that the trains can reach their maximum speed. The lines cannot be shared with freight or conventional passenger trains, and have to have "grade separations" from other rail traffic and from roads. Since existing rights of way tend to be historical, they meander. But the HSRA has instructed its engineers to stay as close as possible to existing rights of way and politics dictated they connect with the districts of powerful politicians. None of this makes for a sensible route.
Anthony Waller, a rail consultant, writes in the California Rail News (Dec 2009-2010),
By routing HSR through municipal centers in Bay Area and LA suburbs, and in the towns and cities of the San Joaquin alley, the project will require massive grade separations and right of way widening along the majority of its mileage. This is the reason the California project already is projected to cost tens of billions of dollars before preliminary enigineering has even started.
The California line also will make numerous stops. A circuitous route, saddled with lower than optimal speeds over much of its mileage and making constant stops and starts, means that the Board's plan for CA HSR will not meet the 2h40min end to tend schedule for its 470 mile trip.
His solutions rely on using conventional rail as feeders to a few well-positiioned termini:
- Build an arrow-straight alignment in the central valley parallel to I5, with connections at the north and south ends to the existing San Joaquin Amtrak line
- Limit the overlap with the Caltrain rails in the bay area
- Use existing state-supported conventional trains as feeders (for service in San Joaquin, around the Bay Area, AND between LA and San Diego
- Tak a shorter more westerly route over the Tehachapis
His alignment is 90 miles shorter and cheaper.
He waspishly comments that "there are engineering consulting firms that produce preconceived answers for their clients" as he scolds the HSRA for ignoring other possibilities.
California high speed rail needs to be brought back down to earth fiscally and physically. The HSRA board has done the project a disservice by dictating a private agenda that is little more than drawing lines on a map to connect politically desired dots. The project's cost is now poised to soar out of the control, and the finished project risks huge deficits due to uncompetitive travel times.
So that leads us neatly to the second issue: politics. The HSR Authority has been wandering up and down the state with "scoping meetings" to get community input and the communities are for the most part, pretty pissed. Much of the route appears to benefit political goals, rather than engineering or economic practicality. A cynic might speculate that the politicians want to put their hands in the Stimulus funding cookie jar.
For example, in San Diego, questionable routing decisions to route the train along a curvy, slow coastal route through expensive deep tunnels appear to be driven by the desire to link the project to a proposed airport expansion, even though the HSRA's own business plan suggests almost no ridership benefit from doing so. Sizeable pushback from the community and local politicians may push the HSRA to reconsider a more central, and economical alignment. Local information at BuildSmartHSR.com.
In the Bay Area, the route goes over the expensive Pacheco pass, instead of the more central and economical Altamont pass. In fact there is a lawsuit filed against the authority on the route chosen in the Bay Area, which similar to San Diego, was presented without proper study as a fait accompli. Local information at highspeedrailway.org
Another reason of course is that to gain support from local politicians, the HSRA has to promise them that the train would stop in their districts. Thus, they try to make it stop at every population center, which has two effects: A, it makes the route wander back and forth, and B, it adds so many stops that it would be impossible to achieve >200mph. If they don't achieve those speeds, of course, the rail is not "high speed", cannot achieve its performance goals, and won't compete with the airlines.
Another Rail consultant, Michael McGinleywrites (my emphasis)
HSRA chose to place its proposed line where it found political support and then tried to construct a business case for the line, pretending that the alignment had a direct, airline-competive routing.... there is simply no realistic hope of getting enough ridership and passenger revenue to amortize even a fraction of the investment plus generate operating income because the line simply is not time-competitive on many trips and is too expensive.
Some observers say HSRA produced a vision that is not a shovel ready system design, but more a starting point for a serious discussion of the state's need for rail infrastructure.
Third, let's think about the financing choices. In its application for a chunk of Stimulus money from the Federal Government, the Governor told the state to put all its apples in one basket. Although there are "shovel-ready" projects for existing, conventional rail, the governor removed those projects from the application. Those out of state may not realize how heavily commuter rail and inter-city trains are used in California; for example, Los Angeles- San Diego corridor is the 2nd most traveled in the entire nation, right behind the north east WashingtonDC - Boston route, although the federal government contributes vastly more to the East coast route. In Northern California, Caltrain is a heavily used network linking Silcon Valley and San Francisco.
State Senator Alan Lowenthal says,
Unfortunately, the governor's action eliminates the possibility of receiving funding from the federal stimulus program for installation of the most sophisticated railroad safety technology available, putting the lives of Amtrak and Metrolink riders at continuing risk. Had this technology been installed last September, it is unlikely that 25 people would have died in the Chatsworth crash of a Metrolink train. The governor also appears to be oblivious to the passenger rail service operating daily between San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara on what is usually referred to as the LOSSAN corridor.
And, speaking of the projects that were eliminated, including safety controls, grade separations for motorist safety, and funding for track and signal projects to allow the existing trains to reach their 110 mph potential, the Senator continues,
All projects would have been constructed before 2017, the federal deadline for spending stimulus funds. And when the high speed service begins in 2020, a very optimistic date, southern California would have an unparalleled regional rail network complementing the high speed trains.
So, the take home message here is that the governor sacrificed jobs and projects that would benefit rail travelers NOW for a rather tenuous future promise, which as we will see, is founded on some shaky ground-- and which really must rely on an efficient conventional rail network to reach its promise. In a real sense, then, the Governor's decision has undercut the potential of the whole project.
Adds Michael McGinley,
the state needs a netowrk of local and regional rail service, with HSR as the backbone connecting them.
Finally, what about the HSRA's own business plan? The California Legislative Analyst strongly criticizes the HSR Authority business plan, pointing out deficiencies in the response to threats, and failure to address risks of reduced ridership, credit failures, market risk, or government funding risk. It's an almost laughable pie in the sky that proposes, among other things, a ridership of 39 million people by year 10 (for comparison, there were only 8million Eurostar HSR passengers year 10), and suggests as many passengers from Gilroy, the Garlic Capital of California, than from Los Angeles. All done more cheaply than a flight from LAX to OAK on hundreds, yes, HUNDREDS of trains PER DAY. This really smells as a political mess, not a sober piece of engineering.
What the critics have in common is that all of them want to see a sensible HSR alternative. The central valley is the perfect location for a true high speed rail line that can be linked to an efficient regional network, leveraging existing services to create an economic alternative to flying. The distances we often travel are a perfect fit for rail. What we don't want is a plan that doesn't work, loses money, and leaves half-finished bits of an ill-planned rail service dotted around the state.
In other words, what we don't need is a boondoggle.
Sources of information:
News articles:
- News update :(SDNN, 14Nov09) At the urging of the public and San Diego City Council members, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has agreed to also study the option of sending the high-speed train along I-15 to Qualcomm stadium, skipping University City
- LA Times (13Nov09): Local rail and commuter rail projects were removed from California's application for stimulus funding in order to put all the eggs in the HSR basket. That means shovel-ready projects to improve Amtrak, Metrolink, and Coaster service in this heavily used rail corridor were not able to apply for money.
- How much will it cost? (LA Times 21Oct09)
- Oppostion in N. CA (SF Examiner, 30Apr09)