In November 2008, California voters approved a $9.9 billion bond measure called Proposition 1A, which gave the state government the approval to begin constructing a high-speed rail line to connect cities in California from Sacramento to San Diego. An update to the budget for this project now puts the ultimate cost of this rail at over $42.6 billion–a more than 25-percent increase from what was projected in Prop 1A. As a result of these cost increases, a one-way ticket from Los Angeles to San Francisco is expected to cost $105, nearly double the projection under Prop 1A. The higher costs are expected to decrease ridership by over 30 percent, and has many Californians crying that the proposed plan is not what they voted for.
The Editorial Board is disappointed in the many impediments to high-speed rail and the continuously increasing price tag that this project requires. However, at the same time, we also give our emphatic and sincere support in favor of California’s High-Speed Rail project. Over the course of this volume, we plan to publish a series of opinions on the economic benefits, environmental impact and political obstacles of high-speed rail projects, both in the state and nationally.
Anyone who has ever taken a regional train within the United States can attest to the incredible inefficiency of the system. Slow speeds, notorious delays and relatively expensive ticket prices have become the hallmarks of railway travel in the U.S. While Japan and France were beginning to build their high-speed rail systems as early as the 1960s and ‘70s, the U.S. chose to focus on its then-thriving automobile and aviation industries, convinced that the future to travel was in the sky and on the highway. At that time, Americans had been convinced that developing its interstate highway system was the key to mastering travel within this expansive country. Today, with the crumbling American auto industry, increasingly intense airport security measures and the nation’s tremendous dependence on foreign oil, automobile and air travel have become expensive, lengthy and environmentally harmful.
America’s current lack of high-speed railways is one of the many reasons that The American Society of Civil Engineers’ Infrastructure Report Card for 2009 gives the U.S. a grade of ‘D’ on transit. As countries like China invest hundreds of billions of dollars in high-speed rail, the United States should be worried that other countries that have already been heavily investing in high-speed rail will soon leave us in their dust, both metaphorically and literally.
When the federal government announced last month that it would be providing $2.3 billion of funds from the Recovery Act, supporters of the rail rejoiced not simply because there were more funds for this project, but because these funds came with the stipulation that the rail must be started by 2012 and completed by 2017. This mandate simultaneously addressed the two greatest impediments to the project thus far: money and urgency. Some expect ground breaking as early as 2011. The Obama administration has called this investment in developing high-speed corridors around the country the greatest investment in domestic infrastructure since President Eisenhower championed the Interstate highway system. The administration has assured the populations within these proposed corridors that this sum is simply an initial investment and that the government intends to provide much more funding in the coming years, which when coupled with state and private investment will meet the high costs of this project.
The Editorial Board believes that it is in this country’s best interest to complete the proposed high-speed rail projects as soon as possible, and to focus greater resources toward railway development in the future. By bringing affordable high-speed rail options to communities across America, these developments will at once facilitate the mobility and interconnectedness of all Americans.