High-speed rail CEO’s new plan is an improvement, but probably is not legal
Ian Choudri, the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s relatively new CEO has rolled out a new proposal for the bullet train’s future. His newly released supplemental project update report offers more realistic projections and some worthwhile ideas, but they are not consistent with current law. If Choudri wants to reimagine the high-speed rail program, the Authority should go back to the ballot and obtain public approval.
The new report offers a variety of scenarios, but Choudri’s preferred option is to build a line from Gilroy (in south Santa Clara County) to Palmdale (in north Los Angeles County) for $87 billion with a 2038 completion date.
By connecting with existing services in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County, the proposal provides a way for rail passengers to go all the way from San Francisco to Union Station at a lower construction cost. While a passenger would have to change trains at Palmdale, HSRA proposes to run bullet trains through Gilroy all the way up to San Francisco on Caltrain’s right-of-way but therein lies the legal problem.
The high-speed rail ballot measure, Proposition 1A (2008) added the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century to California’s Streets and Highways Code. Section 2704.09 of that code includes the following:
The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant to this chapter shall be designed to achieve … Maximum nonstop service travel times for each corridor that shall not exceed the following: (1) San Francisco-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40 minutes.
The requirement to cover 463 miles in 2:40 was plausible under the original plan to lay new tracks compatible with operating speeds of up to 220mph. But the target became much harder to achieve once the Authority moved to a “blended system” after large cost overruns became evident in the early 2010s. Under the blended system, high-speed rail trains would run on existing track at more conventional speeds between San Francisco and San Jose, as well as in Los Angeles. In its 2022 business plan and in simulations provided to this author, the Authority claimed an SF-LA travel time of 2:39, a mere minute under the legal maximum.
Safety regulations limit train speeds on blended system tracks to 110mph largely because they are not fully grade-separated, meaning that they have at-grade rail crossings. Unless trains run slower, pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers crossing the tracks have insufficient time to get out of the way of oncoming trains. Even at maximum speeds of 79mph, Caltrain and Florida’s Brightline have both been involved in numerous fatal accidents at railroad crossings.
Under Choudri’s new plan, 220mph track would terminate at Gilroy in southern Santa Clara County. Trains would then continue north on a conventional right-of-way with a lower speed limit. Today, the southern portion of Caltrain runs on single track that has not been electrified. While it should be possible to electrify and dual track this segment for a few billion dollars, the segment has numerous grade crossings and thus cannot support 220-mph operation.
As a result, Choudri’s plan would increase (theoretical) Los Angeles to San Francisco travel times by about 8 minutes, lifting it above the 2:40 legal limit. And the real travel time would be much higher since it takes 2:00 hours just to get from Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station on LA Metro.
The question of whether to defer or drop Merced from the plan also creates a dilemma. When the Federal Railroad Administration cancelled $4 billion of California high-speed rail grants, it cited the Authority’s inability to deliver Bakersfield to Merced service by 2033 as covenanted in the grant agreement.
The Authority has sued FRA to restore the grants claiming that it has no basis for claiming that the 2033 deadline is unachievable. But now it appears FRA has a strong basis, i.e., that the Authority itself is proposing to bypass Merced.
To be fair, the bypass is presented in the update report as an option. The Authority presents an alternative of finishing Bakersfield to Merced in 2032 (a year ahead of the deadline, but two years later than previously projected).
But while offering this option, the Authority admits what critics already knew: service between Merced and Bakersfield will not generate enough revenue to cover its operating costs. This contravenes Section 2704.08 of the California Streets and Highways Code, which states in part:
The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy (emphasis added).
The Authority now estimates annual ridership of between 1.6 to 2.2 million per year, which works out to a not implausible five thousand riders per day. But with these passengers paying an average of $25 each, they will not cover estimated operational costs of $121 million annually even after the Authority’s generous ancillary revenue assumption (for advertising, parking, etc.). Annual losses would be $31 million or more.
In summary, the Authority is starting to admit that it cannot meet Proposition 1A’s scheduling and non-subsidization provisions now embedded in California law. Recognizing the truth is an important basis for good public policy.
For the Authority to have any chance of succeeding on its own terms, it will have to free itself from the legal restrictions under which it now operates. While the temptation will be to use legislation and court decisions to work around the limitations, the more honest approach would be to return to the ballot with the new high-speed rail measure.
The state government could ask voters for sufficient bonding authority to fund Choudri’s proposal while eliminating the restrictive language in the Streets and Highways Code, giving him the flexibility he needs to update the plan as circumstances change.
I would not vote for such a measure because I doubt the long-term cost and revenue projections, but I would still give the Authority credit for taking a more honest approach. And I may be in the minority. If polls showing that 62% of Californians support continuing high-speed rail are anywhere near accurate, such a ballot measure has a good chance of passage.
Marc Joffe is a Visiting Fellow at California Policy Center and President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.