Why TALC supports Prop 1A

The fully completed high-speed train system would run between San Diego and Sacramento, with connections to the Bay Area. View the system map on the California High-Speed Rail Authority website. Like high-speed trains in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world, California's high-speed train would run at speeds of over 220 miles per hour, making the trip between San Francisco's Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles' Union Station in two and a half hours. Its benefits include:

Climate Protection

California is the twelfth largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, and nearly 40% of the state's emissions come from the transportation sector. California's landmark legislation, AB 32, requires greenhouse gases to return to 1990 levels by 2020 and to achieve levels that are 80% lower than 1990 levels by 2050.

HSR will help to achieve the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals by replacing car and airplane trips with rail trips. The California Air Resources Board has included the HSR project in the draft AB 32 Scoping Plan. By 2030, when the whole system is in place, HSR travel is anticipated to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by up to 12 billion pounds of CO2 per year.

At their September 2008 meeting, the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board approved a goal of using 100% renewable, carbon-free electricity to run the system. Doing so would ensure the emission reduction benefits are not reduced by the consumption of electrical power. Read the feasibility study.

A report by the Center for Clean Air Policy, a non-profit based in Washington DC, and the Center for Neighborhood Technology analyzed proposals for high-speed train systems across the United States. They concluded that the emissions savings in California were equal to the savings in all of the other 11 corridors they studied -- combined. That is due to the high population densities (which will be much higher in 2030) and the significant air travel that will be replaced. The other systems were generally slower too, more similar to Amtrak's Acela system used on the East Coast.

Smarter Land Use

In a major victory for the environmental community, the California High-Speed Rail Authority committed a few years ago to rejecting the easier I-5 Alignment through farms and open space and to focusing new stations in downtowns and at existing transit hubs. The development of a high-speed train linking California's major cities to each other could help retain existing downtowns as the primary economic centers of California. But as was learned from BART's early years, good land use does not automatically follow new transit; policies must be in place to link investments in the high-speed train with supportive land use.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority has adopted land use guidelines that call for a mix of uses, compact development patterns, limited, market-rate parking, and bicycle and pedestrian access to ensure that the neighborhoods around stations will support livability and higher transit use.

The Authority has hired a world-class team led by Prof. Elizabeth Deakin at UC Berkeley to help develop a plan for Central Valley stations. It is now bringing world-renowned Peter Calthorpe on board to build a vision for land use along the whole HSR corridor.

Read TALC's 2007 article in SPUR's newsletter on the potential for smarter land use, and a great overview of the California High-Speed Train.

It should be noted that Proposition 1A specifically prohibits the development of a station between Gilroy and Merced, addressing a concern about the potential to induce sprawl if a station was built in Los Banos.

California's high-speed trains will use state-of the-art electrified vehicles capable of speeds of up to 220 mph, similar to those currently operating in Europe and Asia. The line will consist of new infrastructure often in or alongside existing transportation corridors. The entire HSR system will be grade-separated from parallel and crossing roads. Designed in coordination with the state's existing public transit network, the trains have the potential to share tracks at reduced speeds with conventional trains such as Caltrain and will act as a strong feeder system to urban transit systems.

Supporting Transit

The high-speed rail bond will help fund upgrades to local and regional rail lines including grade separations, electrification of rail lines, and station improvements. It will also support local transit by infusing thousands of riders into transit hubs every day.

Alternatives to High-Speed Rail: Highway and Airport Expansion

California is going to reach a population of 50 to 60 million people over the next 25 to 45 years. There is going to be a growing need to accommodate the growing travel demand. When we don't provide access to effective transit, the demand for highways and airports intensifies greatly.

The environmental footprint of new highways is tremendous; widening existing roads requires large new interchanges and expanded feeder roads. In contrast, a HSR system will largely rely on existing rail corridors.

When we consider spending public dollars on the high-speed rail system, we must weigh this project against the costs of alternatives. For example:

• Caltrans estimates it will cost about $6 billion (2006 dollars) to widen Highway 99 from four lanes to six. Meeting interstate requirements and widening to eight lanes is estimated to cost $20-25 billion. [Caltrans (2005). Route 99 Corridor Enhancement Plan: Unifying the Aesthetic Treatment of Highway Improvement.] Demand for this project is intense; it was the only project earmarked in the recent transportation bond.
• The California Transportation Commission identified $28.5 billion in high priority highway expansion projects for a 10-year period. Over two-thirds of these dollars are needed for projects in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Riverside -- all areas that would be served by HSR. [California Transportation Commission (1999). Inventory Of Ten Year Funding Needs for California's Transportation System. Total cost adjusted to reflect 2007 dollar value.]
• The cost of all construction in the LAX Master Plan is estimated to total $11 billion. [Master Plan LAX. About the Program: Frequently Asked Questions.]

Coalition Position

The TALC Board of Directors voted to support Prop 1A at their September 11, 2008 meeting.

To get to this position, TALC's Coalition has undergone a months-long process. Through this process, the Coalition identified a set of criteria by which to evaluate the HSR bond. Then, working groups, which included member representatives as well as a few rail experts, evaluated the HSR project based on the Coalition criteria. They concluded that HSR in California would deliver important benefits, particularly as compared to a continual reliance on vehicle and airplane travel for long distance in-state trips. View the working group's matrices comparing HSR in California with no HSR and outlining differences between alignments that go through the Altamont and Pacheco Passes.

Working group members developed the following proposed position: “TALC would support the High-Speed Rail bond measure if it would allow for funds to be spent on the Altamont alignment connecting to San Francisco and San Jose, and would prohibit a Los Banos station.” We surveyed member groups on this position and the majority of them were supportive, although some wanted to see a straight “support” position. No member group wanted TALC to take an oppose position.

In the last week of August, the Governor signed AB 3034. This legislation replaces Prop 1 (the initial bond measure that kept getting delayed) with Prop 1A on the November 2008 ballot.

Prop 1A meets the conditions articulated in the proposed position that Coalition members developed: Funds are eligible to be spent on a HSR alignment in the Altamont corridor and there is a clear prohibition of any station between Gilroy and Merced, where Los Banos is located.

The bond retains flexibility to fund HSR along the Altamont Pass corridor as well as the Pacheco Pass corridor, as explained in Stuart Cohen's letter.

As we allow more time to pass, the HSR project becomes more and more expensive, especially in terms of acquiring rights-of-way and construction costs. This is likely our last chance in a generation, or more, to move ahead with this fast and environmentally sustainable alternative.

Take Action: Your can sign an endorsement form or contribute to the campaign by going to the Yes on Prop 1A website.

For more information from TALC contact Carli Paine at carli@transcoalition.org or 510-740-3150 x311.

Resources for more information:

• California High-Speed Rail Authority
• Summary of key issues on the Draft Central Valley to Bay Area Program EIR/EIS
• Association for California High-Speed Trains
• CalPIRG's Campaign for California High-Speed Trains
• TALC's June 2007 article on the proposed High-Speed Train system
• Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology's report: High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the US