Many people in the United States are probably wondering why our rail network is generally bad. We are the richest (by some standards) country on the planet, but traveling by train here would be like a return to decades back for many visitors. Japan, China, most of Europe, and even the small island of Taiwan that we are more worried about these days, all have better railroads than us.
If you look only at California, only its economy has more people than a large number of countries and it would be the fifth largest economy in the world if it were its own country. But even with California’s more left-leaning policies (compared to the United States as a whole), they are struggling to build a high-speed rail between the two cities.
I am as confused as some of you are about all this.
Fortunately, a recent video on Real Life Lore The YouTube channel goes into some detail about why it’s like pulling a tooth to get a rail installed and running in California:
The effort to introduce a high-speed rail from Los Angeles to the Bay Area (two large populated centers) began in 1996, with the creation of the California High Rail Administration, so efforts have actually been going on for most of three decades. But this was only the first step in which ideas would be studied and developed. There was no funding yet.
Proposal 1A (Source of most problems)
Funding did not arrive until voters in California approved Proposal 1A 2008. Strangely, the controversial Proposal 8, which banned gay marriage in the state, passed on the same ballot, along with overwhelming support for President Barack Obama. So, basically, politics is complicated and we can’t look at things that way.
Since then, things have not been easy for the high-speed rail either. Despite widespread public support and what appeared to be adequate funding, things have been complicated and messy ever since.
First, proposal 1A was very concrete. It may seem like a good thing on the surface, but it was a little too specific to deal with some of the challenges the 800-mile rail system would face. The voter proposal cannot be later modified by the state legislature if things go wrong, so the only way to change such voter-initiated laws is to put forward another proposal and pass it. This is a slow and often politically charged process that can take years when you need to make changes much faster to have a successful construction project.
In other words, the California plan based on propositions simply could not stand back from the blows.
Technical problems
One of the problems with the Prop 1A plan was the system speed requirement. All trains were required by law to have an operating speed of 220 miles per hour. But if you look at the best fast trains in Japan or Taiwan, you’ll find that they rarely go that fast. They usually go 30-40 MPH slower (which is still much faster than a car and faster than traveling by plane if you can avoid insane safety delays). The problem is not that trains can’t go that fast, but that it’s not profitable to go that fast when you can just go a little slower for a lot cheaper.
Even worse was the travel time. The trains were supposed to leave San Francisco for Los Angeles in about 2.5 hours (by law). The reality is that lower city speeds (for safety reasons) and lower speeds on the tracks shared by freight railways make the task basically impossible. This led to a huge pile of lawsuits because people didn’t like the state government not delivering what they voted for (among other things).
Another problem is that more people in the state wanted to be involved. For political rather than practical reasons, route changes (which, for the reasons mentioned above, are extremely difficult to produce) have ultimately made routes longer and less efficient just to add some cities and places to the system.
The bigger problem was that they did not plan to start using the completed high-speed rail segments to finance the rest. Why? Because most of the railroad will be a new railroad, not an upgrade of existing passenger railroads. This means that no one can use the thing (and pay for it) until it is mostly finished. That decision (something that other countries were smarter about) eventually increased costs.
Instead, the system will start in Bakersfield and end in Mercedes, both cities that will not invest much traffic (and money) in the project. And that won’t happen until 2029 (according to today’s estimates, it could slip).
Financial problems
Above all, the construction project was only terribly financially driven. Estimates of revenue and passenger numbers are poorly made (and ridiculous). The original plan, which was based on these overestimations, was to persuade companies to invest in the High-Speed Rail Administration, because it would be so profitable. But it quickly became clear that those numbers just weren’t good. The companies, which looked more closely, conveyed the “opportunity”.
In fact, no external sources of funding have succeeded. Funds from the company (which was supposed to cover half of the project) never arrived, but they were not the only ones who did not show up. Federal money was supposed to cover another 25-33% of the project, but in reality, the Federal Alliance covered only 2-3% of that project. This leaves the bag for the state and local authorities.
What’s worse, Prop 1A required the system to be financially independent, with zero subsidies, once it starts working. This sounds good from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, but it is not something that any of the high-speed rail systems do anywhere. Subsidies for these systems are not just the norm, but non-subsidized HSR is not even an exception. So, that law will have to be changed in order for the prices to become competitive with the airlines, so that it will really have the number of passengers.
However, HSR Authority and Prop 1A did not see the project as a competitor to airlines. Instead, they thought the number of passengers would come from people who didn’t want to drive between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Even if taking out of the car was realistic (probably not), traveling by car is even cheaper than airlines, especially if you drive a family. This makes the HSR essentially incapable of meeting its targets in terms of passenger numbers as originally envisioned.
One thing for that: public support
The video, however, was not getting worse. They pointed out that the project has great public support in California. A small majority (56%) support this, and only 35% of the opposition (the rest are unknown / undecided). The price will be insane, but if they manage to make voters continue to support him, maybe they would still solve the fractures and make him fly.
Personally, I hope it works out. If you know me, you might think I would oppose it (some of my views would be considered conservative), but I have lived abroad and understand the value of decent rail systems. If California proves it, at least a little, we could end up with more rail projects that would succeed because the people who stand up for them learn from the mistakes that plagued the California HSR.
So really everyone should be cheering for that, even if we don’t live in California.
Featured image: a computer view of a California HSR train racing through the Central Valley. Image provided by CHSRA.
Take a look at our brand new ones Guide to e-bikes. If you are interested in electric bicycles, this is the best place to start your e-mobility journey!
Appreciate the originality of CleanTechnice and cleantech news reporting? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica member, support, technician or ambassador – or patron at Patreon.