Good debate on rail issue, both positions expressed well.
Out Of Their Minds: High-Speed Rail Lowdown
High-Speed Rail Lowdown
State officials have been working for more than a decade on a plan to build a high-speed rail system in California. A measure to provide almost $10 billion in bond funding was placed on, and then removed from, the ballot in 2004 and then again in 2006. The measure is expected to go before voters in November 2008.
As envisioned, the almost $35 billion system would first link Los Angeles and the Bay Area, with trains traveling up to 220 mph in a 2.5 hour trip. Eventually it would involve 700 miles of track linking other major population centers, including San Diego, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley and Sacramento.
Supporters say the high-speed trains will be cheaper for long trips than other major transportation alternatives such as cars or planes, and the system will be profitable, not costing the taxpayers any funds in the long run. Opponents say the trains are far too expensive, will not get the ridership that supporters expect and could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Harrison Sheppard breaks it down for us.
Quentin Kopp
Chairman, California High Speed Rail Authority
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
Can you outline the parameters of the system and its benefits?
“It’s less expensive than trying to build freeways to accommodate an estimated 50 million people in the next 25 years.
“The initial segment from Los Angeles Union Station to the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, comprising approximately 430 miles, involves an estimated cost of $20 billion.
“The entire system will comprise over 700 miles, from San Diego to Sacramento, at a cost of approximately $35 billion.”
That sounds expensive. How is it funded?
“It is being funded as any capital improvement should be — by general obligation bonds. (The first bond for $10 billion) will provide approximately one-half of the estimated L.A.-to-San Francisco segment costs, with subsequent bond issues at such time as the money will actually be spent.”
The bond was delayed twice. Doesn’t that indicate a lack of political will for the project?
“No, it indicates a priority conferred upon those (infrastructure) bond issues in the most recent election.
“I am pleased it was postponed until 2008. Had it been on the ballot with some $50 billion in bond issues, its likelihood of passage would have been less.”
