When flying between San Diego and Northern California it isn’t unusual to spend more time fighting for a parking spot, standing in the security line, waiting in the terminal and holding on the tarmac than actually flying. It isn’t hard to see why many are saying that there must be a better way. For over a decade the success of high-speed rail systems in Europe and Japan have encouraged California policy makers to push for something similar. In November state voters will get a chance to express their opinions when a $10 billion high-speed rail bond appears on the ballot. Unfortunately, the current proposal treats San Diegans as second class citizens, seemingly oblivious to the fact that there is a world south of Los Angeles’s Union Station. Unless amended to include guaranteed funding to improve San Diego’s passenger rail connections, the region should strongly unify to oppose the measure – letting state leaders know that San Diego will not stand idly by to be treated like a bridesmaid to Los Angeles and the Bay Area.
That the bond has gotten off on the wrong track is tragic. High-speed rail can play an important part in supporting intra-state mobility. Each day there are 12 flights from San Diego to San Francisco, 6 to San Jose, 8 to Oakland, and 7 to Sacramento. Other Southern California cities have a similar number of flights to Northern California, Meanwhile, California’s airports face significant capacity constraints. There is no political will to expand capacity at LAX. Orange County is beginning to bump up against limitations caused by its night curfew. San Francisco has found expansion mired in political and environmental challenges. San Diego’s Lindbergh Field is physically constrained by geography and its single runway.
There is an alternative. Europe and Asia have shown that high-speed rail can help connect cities several hundred miles apart. For example, French high-speed “TGV trains” currently travel the 485 miles between Paris and Marseille in just over three hours. That is almost exactly the same distance between San Diego and San Francisco. Even if a California high speed rail system could only travel the route in four hours, high-speed rail starts to be a real alternative for all but the most time-pressed flyer when one adds in all the extra time that present day air travel requires.
Yet for all this promise, state policy makers have decided to take a very narrow and parochial view. The legislation governing how the bond proceeds will be allocated, AB 3034, was amended last week to state that only money can be spent on other segments only after “construction of the San Francisco- Los Angeles segment is fully funded.” Given the certainty that there will be cost overruns as the state attempts to build this ambitious system, there is almost no chance that there will be any money from the bond left to improve any other rail segments.
Several alternatives would work better than the new provisions in the implementing language. The California Transportation Commission could be given the authority to allocate funds to those projects that have completed engineering and environmental work. That approach has worked remarkably well in regards to transportation funding measures passed earlier in the decade – encouraging regions to get creative, efficient, and effective in getting projects ready to go. Another option would be to provide baseline funding for each of the network’s segments, including the OC-Riverside-San Diego link.
To win approval from skeptical voters, the state legislature is going to need to be specific about how the bond money will be spent and that means passing legislation before the month ends. The next two weeks are critical. It is imperative that San Diego’s political and civic leadership quickly come together and tell Sacramento in emphatic terms that without changes we will be unified, vocal, and resolute in opposition to the measure. They must declare their refusal to accept side deals, promises, or assurances that it will all be worked out after November.
While the Bay Area and Los Angeles may be the 800-pound gorillas in state politics, 25% of the state’s population lives in Orange County, Riverside, San Diego and San Bernardino counties. Unified opposition would make it impossible to pass the measure. It is time for Southland leadership to stand as one and remind Sacramento that there are people who live south of Los Angeles and that to pass the bond in November, our needs must be considered. Rolling over and letting San Francisco and Los Angeles get all the benefits from this statewide investment would be the worst kind of political capitulation.
Reader Feedback
There are no comments yet for this article. Be the first to post!
Post a Comment
Feedback Rules:
Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
If you have not posted before, you will be required to verify your email address before your post is displayed.
