High Speed Rail

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and other political and business leaders on Friday hailed California’s historic bid for $4.7 billion for a high-speed-train network. California formally submitted its application Friday afternoon to the federal Department of Transportation to fund a rail system that would connect much of the state. The benefits to Glendale and Burbank could vary, even as construction and engineering plans continue to be developed.

Stop the California High Speed Rail project. This is a colossal waste of billions of dollars. No public transportation system in America has ever operated without a government subsidy. California will be subsidizing this operation forever. Just look at Amtrak. This a perfect example of how we got into this economic mess, not paying attention to the future ongoing costs of a project. How will we pay for this subsidy? It will never be able to compete with the airlines on routes like L.A. to Sacramento, or if it does, then it will wind up putting the airlines out of business.

Dario Frommer, chairman of the California Transportation Commission, used his canceled flight from Bob Hope Airport to Sacramento today to highlight the need for high-speed rail. As lawmakers review the latest business plan for the rail project today , Frommer, former assemblyman for the 43rd District, issued a statement bemoaning his inability to be there in person after he said his flight was canceled due to fog. "If California already had high-speed rail built, I could have simply jumped on the train," he said in a statement.

California's proposed bullet train, the nation's largest public infrastructure project, has become the focus of an intense federal funding battle that could undermine its survival, as Republican leaders in Congress attempt to claw back as much as $3.3 billion in federal grants already approved for the start of construction next year. The case against the bullet train is being led by a group of California Republicans , including Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Atwater) and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield)

A congressional committee has launched a wide-ranging examination of the California high-speed rail project, including possible conflicts of interest and how the agency overseeing it plans to spend billions of dollars in federal assistance. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform , chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), notified the California High-Speed Authority about the review Monday and ordered the agency to preserve its documents and records of past communications.

The City Council on Tuesday reaffirmed Glendale's relationship with a regional high-speed rail agency by voting to approve $26,214 in membership dues. Glendale had been at risk of getting booted off the Orange Line Development Authority after City Council members refused to budge in their disapproval of a proposal to lift a $100 cap on stipends for board meetings. However, since the Orange Line Development Authority has not changed its payment policy, the Glendale City Council approved paying the dues to keep the city's membership current.

A group of state lawmakers has flown to China to see if California can learn anything from that country about building a high-speed rail system. But the lesson may be about what not to do: the state senators are arriving in a country mourning an accident last month in which two Chinese bullet trains collided, killing at least 39 people and injuring 200. The delegation includes Democrats Kevin De Leon of Los Angeles, Ron Calderon of Montebello and...

As the price tag for California's bullet train has soared to nearly $100 billion, a central argument for forging ahead with the controversial project is an even loftier figure: the $171 billion that promoters recently estimated will be needed for new roads and airports if no high-speed rail is built. Without a fast-rail network, they warn, the state would have to add 2,300 miles of highway and roughly the equivalent of another Los Angeles International Airport to handle a projected surge in future travel.

If and when California's high-speed train is built, how fast would it have to go, and how much cheaper would a ticket have to cost, for you to give up flying? I went to Union Station this week, as well as the Burbank airport, to ask travelers those very questions. And I'd like to hear from you too. But let me set things up first. Every time I consider booking a flight from Burbank to Oakland, I think about whether I'd prefer to drive instead. Usually, I go with the one-hour flight, and if there are no delays, I'm always grateful I didn't make the six-hour drive up Interstate 5. But if traffic to the airport is rough, security is a headache and the flight is delayed, I sometimes end up wishing I'd driven.

When the Obama administration gave California $3.4 billion in startup money for a high-speed rail system, it insisted on a guarantee that the project would not become a white elephant - something critics could brand as a train to nowhere. The first section of track had to run down the spine of the Central Valley and have another use, should the rest of the bullet train project collapse. Those requirements are now at the center of an intensifying political battle, waged by critics who say the state's fallback plan to use a 130-mile stretch of track for slower Amtrak service is a sham because there's no guarantee the national rail service will ever use it. Amtrak said it has no agreement to operate on the track and has not analyzed the possible negative effects on one of its most successful rail lines.

A congressional committee has launched a wide-ranging examination of the California high-speed rail project, including possible conflicts of interest and how the agency overseeing it plans to spend billions of dollars in federal assistance. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform , chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), notified the California High-Speed Authority about the review Monday and ordered the agency to preserve its documents and records of past communications.

The agency overseeing California's high-speed rail project reportedly plans to reduce the projected cost of the bullet train by $30 billion by connecting it with existing rail lines on the outskirts of Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Critics say the revised plan would not create the system that voters were promised when they approved $9 billion in public funding four years ago to get the project started. That plan was to allow passengers to ride without any transfers between the two metropolitan centers - at a total cost of $43 billion.

The bullet trains that would someday streak through California at 220 mph are, in the vision of their most ardent supporters, more than just a transportation system. They are also a means to alter the state's social, residential and economic fabric. But those broader ambitions are triggering an increasingly strident ideological backlash to the massive project. The fast trains connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco would create new communities of high-density apartments and small homes around stations, reducing the suburbanization of California, rail advocates say. That new lifestyle would mean fewer cars and less gasoline consumption, lowering California's contribution to global warming.

The monetary hardship a proposed $98-billion high-speed rail project could bring to local transit systems such as the Glendale Beeline should be recognized in a regional plan that is key to unlocking federal and state transportation funds, city officials say. At a Glendale City Council meeting last week, officials said recognition of that financial impact is missing from the Southern California Assn. of Governments' draft Regional Transportation Plan through 2035, which encourages local transit operators to improve transportation connections to the planned railway stations.

Despite a series of a cautionary reports by outside agencies and groups, the Obama administration is reaffirming its commitment to California's $98.5-billion bullet train project. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood traveled the state this week and met privately with Gov. Jerry Brown Thursday to discuss the embattled project, issuing a statement of support through the governor's office. “Over the past week, I have traveled all over the Golden State and have found a strong base of support for the California High-Speed Rail project, from workers who will build it, manufacturers that will supply the trains to run on it and businesses that will benefit from using it,” LaHood said.

California's proposed bullet train is being recalibrated. And designers may finally be on the right track. Sensitive to growing public and political opposition, high-speed rail officials seem to be coming to a rational conclusion: It makes good sense to begin service ASAP in urban areas where people might actually ride the trains. Construction still would start next fall in the rural San Joaquin Valley, the thinking goes. But simultaneously there'd be major upgrades to conventional lines in the Los Angeles and San Francisco regions.

If and when California's high-speed train is built, how fast would it have to go, and how much cheaper would a ticket have to cost, for you to give up flying? I went to Union Station this week, as well as the Burbank airport, to ask travelers those very questions. And I'd like to hear from you too. But let me set things up first. Every time I consider booking a flight from Burbank to Oakland, I think about whether I'd prefer to drive instead. Usually, I go with the one-hour flight, and if there are no delays, I'm always grateful I didn't make the six-hour drive up Interstate 5. But if traffic to the airport is rough, security is a headache and the flight is delayed, I sometimes end up wishing I'd driven.

Gov. Jerry Brown is on a mission to prevent the United States from becoming a Third World country, and he says the solution is a high-speed railroad in California. "We're not going to be a Third World country if I have anything to do with it," Brown said in a Friday morning interview on KCBS-AM in San Francisco. Fourteen countries already have high-speed rail, but the United States does not. California's high-speed rail plan has come under increasing scrutiny as cost estimates rise, and the state auditor warned Tuesday that financing is "increasingly risky.

As the price tag for California's bullet train has soared to nearly $100 billion, a central argument for forging ahead with the controversial project is an even loftier figure: the $171 billion that promoters recently estimated will be needed for new roads and airports if no high-speed rail is built. Without a fast-rail network, they warn, the state would have to add 2,300 miles of highway and roughly the equivalent of another Los Angeles International Airport to handle a projected surge in future travel.

Planners of California's high-speed rail project want to discard a more direct route from Los Angeles to Bakersfield over the Grapevine and continue development of a sweeping dogleg through Palmdale and Lancaster. Though the option was ruled out in 2005, the Interstate 5-Grapevine corridor was revived for further study last May after state officials and some transportation experts thought it would save billions in construction costs and up to 12 minutes of travel time between Los Angeles and the train's ultimate destination: the Bay Area.