California Dreaming page 1

ABSTRACT: This paper provides a brief overview of the high-speed rail project currentlyunder discussion for California, and some of the political/ planning/growth managementissues it raises in the state. Following consideration of potential public education/publicparticipation strategies for the project, we will briefly treat statewide political issues that aresure to impact the final configuration of the project. Next, we will discuss three segments ofthe proposed system, examining local and regional issues of concern to politicians, residents,and business interests as they review the California High Speed Rail Authority’s proposalsand decide whether or not to support the project with their votes and tax dollars. Conclusionsand recommendations are included at the end.A list of major publications released by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, a briefdiscussion of funding, and a cursory review of the scoping process for the project may be foundin Appendices.

As the growth-beleaguered state of California lumbers into its fourth half-century, politiciansand public agencies mull the possibility of the largest infrastructure project since the CentralValley Water Project of the 1930s–1960s.

A 700-mile network of high-speed rail and associated intercity rail services has been proposedto link the San Francisco Bay Area, cities of the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire,and San Diego. The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA, or ‘the Authority’), a stateagency constituted in 1996 to oversee development and implementation of the system, projectsridership of 32 million long-distance passengers plus 10 million more intercity/commute ridersby 2020. Fiscal sustainability estimates are rosy: Expecting over half of system revenue to comefrom trips diverted from air travel, the Authority projects, for 2020, $880 million in revenue onannual capital costs of $580 million.

Why high-speed rail for California? Whynow?

The population of California grew by 4 million, to33.9 million people, between 1990 and 2000 (U.S.Census Bureau, 2000); increase of 15 millionmore—nearly 45 percent—is projected by 2025(U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). “Sprawl” barely beginsto describe the fastest-growing areas of the state,which include northern Los Angeles County andabutting areas of Kern County (AntelopeValley–Palmdale); areas surrounding the CentralValley cities of Fresno and Bakersfield; SanBernardino and Riverside counties (The InlandEmpire); northern and northeast San DiegoCounty; and areas within commute distance ofSacramento or the San Francisco Bay Area. (SeeFigure 1.) In fact, the state’s definition of“commute distance” has been extended radicallyin recent years. The Central Valley–Bay Areacommute, which can total more than three hoursin each direction, is now accepted by many whofind home ownership in the nine crowded BayArea counties out of financial reach.

Figure 1.Projected Growth by County, 1995–2020

Source: California Department of Finance, n.d. [internet] from:<http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/demographics/growthrate.htm>

California Dreaming page 2

California’s existing transport infrastructure, including the state highway system, is commonlydescribed as ‘at capacity’. Yet air travel between the Bay Area and Southern California, alreadythe busiest air traffic corridor in the nation, is projected by the U.S. Department ofTransportation to increase by 128 percent over 1992 levels by 2010 (CHSRA, 2001b, p.5). Trafficon major intercity highways is expected to increase by between 38 and 64 percent between 2000and 2020 (Ibid.). (See Figure 2.)

Unlike residents of regions that have developed compact city centres with a mix of housing andcommercial/ industrial activity, or of cities that have grown outward along with mass transitexpansion to suburbs, Californianscontinue to demonstrate remarkableacceptance of the auto-dependentgrowth patterns that enableconstruction of large single-familyhomes (albeit on progressively smallerlots). With the tendency among newhome buyers to prioritise an‘affordable’ home over a manageablecommute to work, the statewide trendis toward large residential subdivisions(on former agricultural land)punctuated with large shoppingcentres and connected by commercialstrip development. City centres can bedifficult to locate and often seemirrelevant.

Traffic, both local and intercity, iscompounded by unwalkableresidential communities and longcommutes to work. Air quality isdeclining in most parts of the state(California Air Resources Board, 2002).Non-point source pollution—much ofit urban runoff related to vehicleemissions—is a major problem formost municipalities larger than 100,000population.1

Although the perennial battles overwater (supplied for most of the state by snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada mountains) betweenagriculture, population centres, and wildlife continue apace, it is unlikely that water will be thefactor that limits growth in the near-to-medium term. In the absence of new transportationalternatives to the automobile, however, declining quality of traffic-dominated urban life willonly continue to direct growth to the less-developed “exurban” areas mentioned above andshown in green and dark pink in Figure 1. This will exacerbate the extension of sprawl to thehinterlands.

While projecting a loss of 4 million Californians to other states before 2020, the U.S. Censusbureau predicts that the state’s birth rate will far outstrip the death rate (20 million births v. 8million deaths) while rates of international migration will continue to be among the highest inthe nation. The elderly population is expected to double in the period (Campbell, 2001). Thespecific demographics of anticipated growth portend specific types of development and

1 Such communities are required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systemstandards, set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, by March 2003.

Figure 2.Highway congestion and airport capacityforecasts, 2000–2020

Source: CHSRA Draft Preliminary Purpose and Need

California Dreaming page 3

infrastructure investment: more schools and amenities for families, more walkable communitiesfor the elderly, more local transit and better intermodal connections in established populationcentres.

Urbanists from around the state agree that California’s historical growth patterns need tochange. A new, carefully planned intrastate rail system should be able to provide both high-speed service (and attractive, economical alternatives to currently overburdened air traffic)between the state’s current population centres and non-auto intercity travel options. Perhaps

most important in heading off sprawl, localand regional planners can use the promiseof a new, efficient, high-capacity, intercityrail system to leverage the local publictransport investments, trip-reductioninnovations, and “smart growth”development patterns that many in theircommunities are currently advocating andwill soon be impelled to support in generalplanning documents and with localregulations and funding.

As a state agency, the California HighSpeed Rail Authority would seem to havesome significant responsibility fordeveloping and implementing a projectthat will make a positive contribution tothe quality of life of all Californians, and tothe future health and sustainability of thestate’s highly stressed environment. Theproblem is that in some of its decisions theAuthority may find these general statewidegoals in competition with its own narrowerstated objectives of maximizing ridershipand revenue. Among its criteria for routingdecisions the Authority lists “compatibility

with existing and planned development, respecting smart growth policies where they are inplace” (see Appendix III, Routing Alternatives and Scoping Phase Decisions). In some fast-growing areas of the state smart growth policies may not yet be in place. Here the Authorityneeds to soberly recognize the formidable power of a high-speed rail system to direct and shapegrowth in the state for many decades to come. Where necessary CHSRA must educate and leadthe state towards sustainable growth and development.

First steps toward a viable project

The CHSRA consists of a staff of four, overseen by nine board members appointed by theGovernor and the state legislature. Work is undertaken by consultancies, which include aproject management consultant (Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., and associatedconsultancies) and five other transport engineering firms, each of which is responsible for one ofthe five regions of the state defined by the Authority for study in the scoping process. (SeeFigure 3.2)

Since its inception in 1996, the Authority and its consultants have focused on preliminaryengineering studies and preparation of documents leading to draft “program level”Environmental Impact Report and “Tier 1” Environmental Impact Statement documents

2 Unless otherwise noted, all rail system route maps are from CHSRA documents.

Figure 3.Major route segments to be evaluated in EIR/EIS

California Dreaming page 4

(EIR/EIS).3 Release and formal public agency/public review and comment on these drafts arecurrently scheduled to begin in mid-2003 (Leavitt, 2002a).4

Following a 60-day public comment period the authority will respond to comments and preparefinal documents.5

Only when this program-level environmental review process is complete will a recommendedfunding strategy and incremental, detailed “project-specific” plans be developed for phases ofthe overall project. Each phase will have its own detailed EIS/EIR process (CHSRA, 2001a).

Public review and comment

Clearly both the overall cost and the local and intra-regional specifics of a high-speed railnetwork for the state will be a topic of intense interest to Californians. To date public input tothe Authority’s proposals has been generated in a series of “Town Hall Meetings” held at cityand county council meetings, and in public “scoping meetings” required by the EIS/EIRprocess. These events were intended to inform public officials about the project and provideinput to the Authority about routes and stations stops that should be considered in preparationof the Scoping Report (issued in final form in March 2002) on which the draft EIS/EIR will bebased. Most of the pre-EIR/EIS meetings were complete by mid-2001, months before theAuthority began issuing its preliminary scoping findings and results of geological andengineering studies that ruled out a number of routing options that had attracted vocal publicsupport. (See Appendix 1 for the sequence of major documents released by the Authority todate.)

In addition to scheduled local opportunities to comment during early phases of the project, theAuthority’s monthly board meetings are open to the public and include regular public commentperiods as required by law. Meetings are regularly attended by some state legislators and bylocal elected officials, especially from areas where routing is contested.

The project’s June 2000 ‘Business Plan’ names the CHSRA’s website( http://www,cahighshpeedrail.ca.gov ) as the ‘prime communications tool’, and cites monthly‘visits’ by “more than 76,500 people”. The Business Plan also states that during 1999 theAuthority “conducted over 200 presentations and workshops attended by more than 15,000elected officials, regional and state stakeholders, and members of the public” where “routes,transportation technology, costs, project financing and alternative transportation systems” werediscussed (CHSRA, 2000, p. 49).

3 These “conceptual” documents and associated broad-brush engineering studies are intended tothoroughly outline the program in general and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, respectively.4 See also http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/whats_new/index.html .5 While a 60-day comment period is specified in CEQA, at least one large transit agency commenting inthe scoping process requested it be extended for up to 180 days in order to allow for more detailedreview.The CHSRA must certify that the Final Program EIR is in compliance with CEQA and has been acceptedby the High Speed Rail Association Board. Formal justification of the findings in the EIR is to be includedin the Authority’s final Notice of Determination (NOD). The NOD must be filed with all affectedmunicipalities, which have 30 days to challenge the Authority’s findings.Concurrently, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA; the lead agency for federal NEPA requirementcompliance) will publish a Notice of Availability of the Final Program EIS in the Federal Register,beginning a 30-day public comment period. After receiving and incorporating comments, the FRA willissue a Record of Decision that will include binding commitments by the CHSRA to monitoring andmitigation during implementation and operation of the statewide system.Issuance of the NOD and ROD signal completion of program-level environmental review.

California Dreaming page 5

But in a state with 36 million population, the general public’s proportion of those 76,000 websitehits and 15,000 meeting attendees may not be a significant number. In fact, on-the-recordcomment letters included in the Final Scoping Report are nearly all from municipalities andregional and state transport agencies. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that pre-scoping report meetings were neither effectively noticed nor publicized for much of the public:Many water quality advocates in the Bay Area, where opposition to San Francisco InternationalAirport’s runway expansion plans should have made high speed rail a hot topic, were unawareof the project. LexisNexis searches reveal that wire stories during the comment periods were notfrequently picked up by the state’s major newspapers, except in areas like Orange County,where opposition to adding to existing commute service is rife, and Fresno, home of theproject’s staunchest supporter in the legislature. Coverage by the San José Mercury News andthe Los Angeles Times—arguably the state’s most influential dailies—was notably sparse.

A concerned observer might note that the intricacies of the project, its potential effects on statebudgets and on the form growth will take in California over the next decades, and therelationships among these require extensive education of both local decision makers and thepublic. Informed public participation is essential in the formal review process and at the ballotbox when funding, or specific routing decisions—or both—come to a vote. In the state’sconsistently volatile and entirely unpredictable tradition of statewide ballot initiatives putforward by narrow interest groups, anything can happen. Only a well-informed electorate canprevail in this environment.

Unfortunately, the Authority’s public education efforts are constrained both by budgetlimitations and by state law restricting a state agency’s ability to lobby the public in its owninterest. (The line between ‘educating’ and ‘lobbying’ is both fine and blurry.) Additionally, theAuthority must not prejudice the EIS/EIR approval process by advocating against the requisite‘no-build option’ that must be fully considered in the environmental documents.

So what can the CHSRA realistically do to reach the public with its plans and rationales? Onestrategy might be to build coalitions with advocacy groups and non-profits with significantstatewide membership numbers, effective infrastructure for reaching those members, andobjectives that are consonant with the potential of high-speed rail to contribute to the reductionof air and water pollution; to act as a catalyst for smart-growth initiatives; and to reduce trafficand shorten commute times.

Careful preparation for the statewide round ofpublic meetings during the EIR/EIS commentperiods is key. This is not a situation where onecan send one’s consultant out to design theperfect slide show or a killer video, andmechanise a series of meetings. By the time thefinal documents are ready for review theauthority will surely have detailed and specificinformation about the concerns of each regionand municipality relating to routing decisions,station stop locations, local intermodalconnections and interfaces with commuter railand intercity travel markets, as well as thesupport or opposition of local politicians,planning departments, transportation advocates,and agencies such as airport authorities. It should be aware of the status of smart growthmeasures in county general plans and local zoning regulations. All of this information shouldgive the CHSRA a clear sense of where to go for the ‘low-hanging fruit’ (regions wheresignificant electoral support may be easiest to obtain) and where opposition is greatest.Meeting-by-meeting planning for EIS/EIR review should be done according to detailedmapping of local demographics and local concerns.

In California’s Central Valley, there is little resistanceto proposals for high-speed rail.

California Dreaming page 6

In addition, where CHSRA’s proposals overlap or must coordinate with the interests of othertransit agencies—as in Southern California’s coastal communities where the state Department ofTransportation (Caltrans) is generally perceived both as an ineffective provider of useful trainservice and as the enemy of the local beach economy and culture—the Authority will need toimplement major confidence-building strategies if it is to have any hope of staving off rabidlocal opposition to its plans.

Always in California the challenge is reaching a significant proportion of the population with aclear and accurate message—and reaching them repeatedly, as studies show that in order to ‘getthrough’, messages must be consistent and repetitive. Traditionally, the two main ways ofreaching California’s vast and diverse population are by paid advertising that projects asloganized message consisting of the smallest possible number of letters or syllables via radio,television, and roadside billboards; and by ‘soundbyte’ television news coverage that oftentrades an opportunity to convey slightly more detail for the likelihood that reporters willmangle the facts as they race for their deadlines.

Fortunately or unfortunately for high speed rail in California, effective coverage of this complextopic will require a level of detail generally available only in print journalism and in televisionnews ‘feature’ reporting. Well in advance of release of the environmental documents, theAuthority should schedule editorial board meetings with local and regional newspapers andtelevision stations, including non-English language outlets. While conversations with localeditors and transportation reporters will inevitably provide the Authority with useful localinsight to use in public meetings later on, preparation for meetings with the press should usethe same concerns-mapping approach. Coöpting the sustained attention—and gaining theunderstanding—of editors and reporters is absolutely essential for significant statewidecoverage of the project.

Political considerations

The realistic shape of a high-speed rail network forCalifornia must be seen in light of the state’s wild andwoolly political landscape and the powerful economicforces that shape it. This writer is convinced that such anetwork is an eventual inevitability, if only becausepreservation of liveability in the face of unstoppablegrowth will mean that finally, the state will have to tryeverything.

But the system’s effects on local, regional, and statewidegrowth patterns will be found in design details andpolitical compromises that are likely to be hammeredout in the Sacramento back rooms where the big dealsare made.

It is significant that while the Authority projects thegreatest ridership and revenue from the Bay Area–LosAngeles route, the most consistent political support forthe project comes from the Central Valley. Senator Jim Costa, Fresno Democrat and powerfulchair of the Agriculture and Water Resources Committee and State Treasurer Phil Angelides, alife-long resident of Sacramento, are arguably the new network’s most influential proponents.Costa’s senatorial district spans four counties and includes the fast-growing cities of Bakersfieldand Fresno, as well as at least four smaller, but equally fast-growing municipalities, and vastexpanses of agricultural land, now largely controlled by agribusiness conglomerates. (See Fig.4.) While Costa has been a key promoter of smart growth measures in the Legislature, termlimits will force him to leave office at the end of 2002. It is by no means a given that his

Figure 4.Jim Costa’s state senate district

California Dreaming page 7

constituents and contributors—or his successor in Sacramento—will see “sprawl” as a threat tolocal quality of life.

Comments at CHSRA board meetings indicate that in several fast-growing areas of the statethat are nevertheless a considerable distance from ‘old’ and traditionally important populationcentres, local politicians see a new rail system that will provide intercity service as key todesired future growth. Perhaps because development in several of these areas (Antelope Valleynorth of Los Angeles, Temecula in the Inland Empire, parts of the Central Valley) is so young,increasing traffic is seen to be a problem but sprawl is not. The potential of the proposed systemto affect future growth patterns in the state should be a hotly debated topic in the EIR/EIScomment phase. As noted earlier, one of the criteria for selecting particular routes and station

stops is “compatibility with existingand planned development,respecting smart growth policieswhere they are in place”. This wouldseem, unfortunately, to leave a dooropen for sprawl-friendly planningdecisions where they are not in place.

While Antelope Valley may embraceany new rail network that mightprovide long-distance commuteservice, the Southern CaliforniaRegional Rail Authority (SCRRA),which operates the cash-anaemicMetrolink commuter rail system inthe greater Los Angeles area(including its farthest-north stop inAntelope Valley; see Figure 5), seesunwelcome competition. DavidSolow, CEO of both SCRRA andMetrolink, has stated that theproposed system has too manystation stops for a high-speed

railroad (Solow, 2001b). In May 2001 he argued ingeniously that competition with Metrolinkcould cause environmental harm worthy of consideration in the EIR/EIS.

By taking cars off the road, Metrolink has a beneficial environmental impact. Weare concerned that the high-speed train system, by limiting our capacity or byincreasing our operating costs or subsidies, will limit our ability to meet projectedridership demand and to continue to divert automobile trips. As a result the HighSpeed Train system will have an adverse environmental impact (Solow, 2001a).

While local partisans lobby for specific routing choices, there is also bound to be statewideopposition to any public spending project of this magnitude. And it should surprise no one thata strong private-autos-and-more-highways lobby is still very active in California. Senator TomMcClintock, Republican vice-chair of the state Senate Transportation Committee, represents themost populous sections of Ventura County and the San Fernando Valley (through which aGrapevine-route train would pass on its way to Los Angeles). He has vocally opposed anyinvestment in rail infrastructure for many years, arguing that more highways, fewer carpoollanes, and cheaper gasoline are the most cost-effective solutions for the state’s traffic problems.In March he noted that $6 billion then being discussed for a bond issue would better be spentbuilding 400 miles of new freeway lanes in congested areas (Hill, 2002).

In March of 2002 in Hanford, one of the smaller cities in Costa’s district, City Manager Jan Reynoldsechoed Kings County Supervisor Alene Taylor’s fear that high speed rail would bring only

Figure 5. Metrolink system map

Courtesy SCRRA

California Dreaming page 8

residential development to the area, and “building houses does not pay for providing services”(Obra, 2002).6

6 Indeed, an analysis provided to Better Homes and Gardens Magazine by the Los Angeles Times quantifiessome of the cost of growth to the Central Valley cities of Fresno and Bakersfield as they expanded ontoformer agricultural land.

1984–85 1999–2000

Fresno

Population 284,000 415,000

Land area (sq. miles) 93 103

Annual cost of services $56 million $122 million

Annual cost of debt service(bonds)

$3.3 million $329 million

Bakersfield

Population 130,000 233,000

Land area (sq. miles) 78 114

Annual cost of services $38 million $113 million

Annual cost of debt service(bonds)

$15 million $30 million

Source: Nolan (2001)

The Hollywood Freeway. Photo courtesy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Photographer: Gene Daniels

California Dreaming page 9

Three Route Segments: Issues and Preliminary Decisions

San Francisco–San José

Although this segment shows some characteristics of a bottleneck in the statewide system, it isarguably crucial to the viability of a high-speed train network to California. With two stationstops in San Francisco—the current commuter rail station at 4th and King streets and the soon-to-be-upgraded intermodal Transbay Terminal within easy reach of downtown—a stop nearSan Francisco International Airport, and a stop at Diridon Station in San José, another majorregional transportation hub, this segment offers great connectivity and convenience for asignificant portion of Bay Area-to-Los Angeles travellers, most of whom now fly. (Figure 6)

The scoping analysis for this segment eliminated potential alignments along the 101 freewaycorridor, based on the same concerns that surfaced elsewhere in the state: the high cost of aerialtrack/guideway construction over existing freeway interchanges, and the enormous logisticalproblems associated with relocating over-capacity rush hour traffic during construction. Theanalysis also rejected ‘exclusive guideway’ options for the Caltrain corridor, the existing right-of-way used by the area’s currently overburdened commuter train service as well as freight. Inorder to avoid purchasing even more expensive right-of-way through residential andcommercial areas on the posh San Francisco Peninsula, new tracks would need to be almostexclusively aerial. In addition to the financial burden, an important consideration in thisdecision was the social cost of erecting visual and physical barriers through the heart of anumber of established communities.

This left two options for sharing track with Caltrain from San José to San Francisco: the ‘basic’plan for integrating trains running on the statewide high-speed rail network with commute andfreight schedules, and a more costly ‘four-track option’ that would give all of the stations alongthe route either four tracks or bypass tracks. In either case speeds would be constrained byCaltrain’s authorized speed limits. See Table 1 for some basic comparisons of the two options.

Table 1. Considerations for route selection between San José and San Francisco

A. Shared track with Caltrain: Basic option (no additional track construction beyond thatplanned by Peninsula Commute Joint Powers Board)

Pros Cons Constraints

Least costly option

Accommodates both stationsin San FranciscoRequisite grade-separations at47 crossings along commuterroute enhances safety forexisting service (Currentlythere are many fatalities here)Depressing track atintersections eliminates needfor blowing train horns (a biglocal issue)

Need to integrate high-speedservice with local commuteservice will reduce potentialnumber of high-speed trainsTrains will be slower due toneed to conform to Caltrain’sauthorized speed limits

47 grade separations requiredat intersections (as opposed tonone for an aerial dedicatedsystem)

Existing/expanded commuterservice uses same tracks

Rolling stock for entirestatewide system must becompatible with existingCaltrain track

B. Shared track with Caltrain: Four-track option (all stations will have either four tracks orbypass tracks)

Pros Cons Constraints

Minimizes delays to localcommute service

Adds estimated $600 million to‘basic’ option

Rolling stock for entirestatewide system must becompatible with Caltrain.

Sources: CHSRA 2001d, 2002a

California Dreaming page 10

Bakersfield–Sylmar (Northern Los Angeles County)

Antelope Valley, in the northeast quadrant of Los Angeles County, is an area where vast tractsof greenfield land (actually desert) are rapidly being developed for the LA region’s newest‘bedroom communities’. Just a few years out of the intensive golf course construction phase,traffic is already a major problem. The region’s current population of 400,000 is projected totriple by 2020, although the United States Geological Survey (1999) cautions that

many years of groundwater pumping has already caused ‘irreversible compactionof the clay and silt layers in the aquifer from which ground water is pumped. Theresulting land subsidence has caused substantial damage to runways, roads, wells,pipelines, and other structures. Surface fissures or cracks in the land surface 1,300feet long, 6 feet wide, and 13 feet deep have been reported.

Area politicians are bound and determined that the Bakersfield–LA segment of the new railroute will pass through a new transportation centre planned for Palmdale, rather than crossingthe Tehachapi Mountains over the Grapevine Pass to the west. (See Figure 7.) Los Angeles’nascent Metrolink transit service currently terminates in Lancaster. In March of this year the LosAngeles Times reported that Caltrans is planning a 5.3-mile long highway connector to link theAntelope Valley Freeway (S.R. 14) and the Palmdale Airport (which Los Angeles InternationalAirport is eyeing Palmdale Airport as an overflow destination). But due to budget constraintsthe new connector may take 20 years to complete (Liu, 2002).

Two views of the Antelope Valley

California between Bakersfield and Los Angeles is earthquake country. Route selection in thisarea is highly constrained by the need to cross active faults at grade as well as costconsiderations associated with tunnelling more than 6 miles at a stretch.In the draft scoping report for this segment, the Authority’s consultants noted that

The I-5 Corridor was found to have the shortest distance, lowest capital costs, fastestLos Angeles to San Francisco Bay Area travel times and highest ridership forecasts.But, it was also found to have the lowest attractiveness for serving intermediatemarkets since it does not traverse many developed areas (CHSRA 2001d, p. 59).

In early studies, the Authority assumed that the two main indicators of ridership potential arecost and travel time (Ibid. p. 41).

Table 2 provides a brief comparison of the two Bakersfield–LA routes still in contention afterthe scoping study. All of the routes through this area cross prime farmland (some irrigated),and extensive floodplains south of Bakersfield. There is also a major endangered species issue,as California Condors, which have demonstrated their propensity for flying into power lines,might also be attracted to the catenary lines carrying electric power above the trains.

California Dreaming page 11

Table 2. Considerations for route selection between Bakersfield and Sylmar

A. State Route 58–Antelope Valley/Metrolink right-of-way–Soledad Canyon–Sylmar

Pros Cons Constraints

Minimizes tunnelling and capitalcosts

Crosses earthquake faults atgrade

Best construction access, as itfollows existing highways ortransit rights-of-wayServes booming AntelopeValley

Crosses grazing land in theTehachapis

State highway right-of-way hasbeen committed for truck lanes

Proposal for Palmdale Transp.Center is opposed by residentialneighbours

10.1 miles of tunnelling

Prevalence of activeearthquake faultsAlluvial soils may be subjectto liquefaction in a strongquake3.5% grade impacts speed,energy use, and brake wear

Los Angeles National Forestis adjacent

B. I-5 Alignment: From Bakersfield south to I-5 and over the Tehachapis (The Grapevine)

Pros Cons Constraints

Most direct route; best traveltime; highest projectedridershipCrosses both earthquakefaults at grade (San Andreas,Garlock)

Further environmental studyneeded—of biological impacts at theGarlock Fault crossing west ofCastaic LakeAll stations in Santa Clarita havebeen eliminated for environ-mental/planning reasons

18 miles of tunnels, max.length 6 miles

Active earthquake faultsAlluvial soils

3.5% grade

Sources: CHSRA 2001e, 2002a

Figure 6. San Francisco–San José Figure 7. Bakersfield–Sylmar options

California Dreaming page 12

Orange County–Oceanside

Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and Coast Daylight passenger service, Metrolink commuter service toOceanside, Coaster commuter service (North County Transit District) and Burlington NorthernSanta Fe freight trains all use the “LOSSAN Corridor” between Los Angeles and San Diego, thesecond busiest rail corridor in the nation. While one might expect all this traffic to mean plentyof service, the opposite is true. Capacity along this highly constrained route was reached longbefore demand could be accommodated.

After extensive consultation during the scoping process (and years of study by Amtrak andCaltrans), the Authority has eliminated all routing options except incremental upgrades ofexisting LOSSAN infrastructure; because of the infeasibility of electrification south of Irvine,high speed rail passengers will have to change trains either at Los Angeles Union Station or inIrvine. This train change is a major compromise that represents the Authority’s willingness towork with Caltrans and Amtrak on a thorny tangle of environmental and political issues. Thehope is that dealing bit by bit over time with the region’s plethora of geological, environmental,and public relations concerns will make faster service possible along this segment at some timein the future (Leavitt, 2002a). See Table 3 for a summary of the “basic” and “high” upgradeoptions.

While the beach communities of San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente would dearly wish tosee the tracks removed from their coastline altogether, are adamant in resisting anyimprovements to the existinginfrastructure. San Clemente’s CityManager Mike Parness summed itup in a comment letter (2001): “Westrongly oppose any project thatwould increase traffic or proposephysical improvement of theexisting rail right-of-way”. Thechair of the Orange County CoastalCoalition may have explained whywhen he wrote a week earlier that“California’s coast contributes morethan $17.3 billion to the state’seconomy. Beach attendanceoutweighs theme and amusementparks by 200 to 1 (Wilson, 2001)”.The beach cities are advocating forthe CHSRA to move all of thetracks inland, away from the coastaltogether, an alignment optionthat was eliminated due to highcost and terrain issues that wouldpreclude non-dedicated trackalternatives through the region.

Figure 5. Orange County–Oceanside