Californians dream big. Sadly, though, many of their lofty goals are just pipe dreams, which is the case with the prospective high-speed rail system.
The rail system, approved by voters in 2008, would connect major parts of California, allowing people to travel rapidly throughout the state. It sounds like a great plan, but in reality it’s so unrealistic that it’s unlikely California would actually see any benefit from it.
The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the state agency tasked with instituting the project, touts the economic benefits of the program. The agency says the project will provide tens of thousands of construction jobs to both build and maintain the system in addition to more than 400,000 “permanent state jobs statewide created by the economic growth the high-speed rail will generate over the next 25 years.”
But that’s not all. The agency also trumpeted the increased efficiency in travel, as well as diminished traffic jams, numerous environmental benefits, and less dependence on foreign oil.
These projections sound fabulous, but further analysis and recent developments prove that they are highly unrealistic and unlikely to improve the state any time soon. One of the major issues rendering this project unrealistic is funding.
According to the state auditor, cost estimates for the initial phase of building run “between $98.1 billion and $117.4 billion,” of which little more than $10 billion has been obtained.
The Los Angeles Times reports that since the project isn’t expected to be finished until 2030, this would enable inflation and lead to soaring costs. Because of these rising costs, the state will have to allocate more than $700 million each year in order to repay borrowers.
So, how will California obtain this funding? If expert opinion is any indication, it won’t. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) writes that the CHSRA’s business plan relies on funding projections that are “optimistic” and it’s uncertain how future funding for the project will be obtained.
In addition, the state has received some federal funds, but the LAO thinks it’s doubtful that the agency will receive the amount they expect. The LAO also cites many problems with the project’s implementation, which include a lack of time and adjustability due to federal constraints in addition to issues with the CHSRA itself. It’s unclear how any of these issues will be resolved, if at all.
Along with its funding woes, the project also relies on suspect ridership projections. UC Berkeley researchers claim that much of the project’s potential environmental benefits rely on these estimates, which are vastly overstated.
Furthermore, the benefits depend on the level of urbanization; if people choose to live somewhere just beyond metro areas, UC Berkeley researchers maintain that driving will still be the preferred mode of travel. Plus, as historian Richard White argues, the rail system would do nothing to alleviate traffic in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, so the city wouldn’t see much improvement.
Due to its high cost and low probability of benefiting the public, the project should be scrapped.
Leonardo Poareo is a senior journalism major and a contributing writer for the Daily 49er.
