California Needs Rail, Not Roads
The recent vote against a new toll freeway in Orange County signals that California's don't want more roads. Instead, transportation dollars should go to building the state's high-speed rail system.
"The recent 8-2 California Coastal Commission vote against the Foothill-South Toll Road extension through Orange County may have been bad news for those who like to build and drive on crowded freeways, but it was great news for the traveling public.
Besides underscoring strong concerns about potential long-term environmental damage in a project of this type and size, the lopsided vote sent out an important message: Californians are tired of the freeways-as-usual approach that creates more traffic congestion, not less.
The Transportation Corridor Agency, the Orange County entity behind the extension of the toll road through San Onofre State Beach, says it will appeal the ruling to the U.S. secretary of commerce because the road is considered a federal project. But the betting is that the Coastal Commission's ruling will not be reversed, and even if it were, the agency would have to go back to the Coastal Commission for final approval.
What the commission really said is that if close to $1 billion is available to build this project, let's use it on projects that will deliver more bang for the buck, reduce environmental impacts and energy use, and make a real dent in the highway congestion that plagues Orange County and most of California.
And that means high-speed rail. The $1 billion its sponsors wanted to spend on a toll road could go a long way toward paying for the cost of that portion of the state's high-speed rail plan that could take travelers from Los Angeles to San Diego in 55 minutes and from Irvine to either of those cities in less than a half-hour while eliminating a lot of congestion on Interstate 5, not only in Orange County but along the entire route."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
L.A. Transit Chief Calls for Highway Tolls - May 06, 2008
Debating L.A.'s Growth, Traffic and Transit - May 06, 2008
L.A. Offered Funding, With Toll Road Ultimatum - Apr 25, 2008
New Train Tunnel Ads Irk Riders, Draw Revenue - May 15, 2008
A Congestion Pricing Plan For America's Most Famous Bridge - May 11, 2008
Acela v Talgo
High-speed rail systems are inevitable and coming. But, a huge cost-savings can and should be applied to the one proposed in California. Electrification is about 1/3 the entire cost, but most of the route is rural where little environmental benefit will accrue. Reduce the mandated top speed from 200mph to 150mph and run Talgo-type (non-electrified) high-speed locomotives and coaches. Talgo trainsets will match the actual 'average speed,' anyway. The main cost of the project is track upgrades. Future electrification is not ruled out. We better understand how land-use and development patterns are the more pertinent cause of traffic congestion. In order to make transit more attractive, Transit Oriented Development, (rather than soul-strangling sprawl), is more a solution than the fastest high-speed trains. The high-speed train that bypasses stations, misses the point. The faster we go, the longer it takes to get to where we are. Thanks very much for saving San Onofre Beach!
CA HSR
i believe there would be 2 major places where significant tunneling would be needed, one between the central valley and san jose and the other between los angeles and the central valley both of which go through pretty major mountain ranges. then theres the tunnel going into the new transbay terminal. not only would these tunnels be tremendously expensive but require electrification. ideally this system could be built overtime in phases starting with the critical tunnels while using existing track to reach these tunnels but if the tunnels have to electrified and you have a tunnels spread out along the line you wouldnt want to keep switching locomotives from electric in the bay area to diesel in the central valley then back to electric to go thru the tunnel to LA.
Empirical logic kills project
I'm very leary of the proposed new transbay terminal. I agree that the old one should be replaced, but extravagantly increasing its cost solely for electrified high-speed train is not justified.
Transit systems work by integrating transfers between lines. The current Caltrans terminal, the Baby Bullet train's terminus, is inadequate only because the transfer system from there to Market Street is inadequate. A surface transit line, even a direct streetcar line, would be less expensive and serve the district better than a stupid tunnel.
Starting the California High-speed Rail project with tunnels and electrification is its death blow. Jon's empirical logic has killed California's high-speed rail project. Because the wiz-bang sentiment demanded lightning-fast speed, not even reasonably-fast rail will be built. There is no tunnel along the length of the proposed route that requires electrification. Jon may actually want more freeways, knowing that the best way to kill a rail transit project is to load it up with extravagances.
HSR
I want to see HSR as much as you or any HSR advocate. If it can be done piecemeal I would be all for it. I just had concerns about the tunneling needed and I dont see how you could build without tunnels. Hopefully I'm wrong about the tunnels and they arent needed.