Examiner.com // 1 hr 50 mins ago
CBS2-KCAL // 3 hrs ago
ABC7.com // 4 hrs ago
Los Angeles Times // 4 hrs ago
CBS2-KCAL // 4 hrs ago
Examiner.com // 5 hrs ago
Daily News // 6 hrs ago
Daily News // 6 hrs ago
CBS2-KCAL // 6 hrs ago
CBS2-KCAL // 6 hrs ago
 
   
Local leaders map out high-speed rail tracks
Article History
There are updates to this article.
Two expensive connections would link commuters in Central Valley to Bay Area with the high-speed rail.
(Courtesy graphic)
Two expensive connections would link commuters in Central Valley to Bay Area with the high-speed rail.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Although connecting the Bay Area and Southern California has been given priority status for the state’s high-speed rail project, local leaders still need to decide where tracks will be laid, and for what price.

With an estimated travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles of approximately two and a half hours and a ticket price no higher than $50, the high-speed line — similar to those in Japan and Europe — could offer a shorter overall travel time than an airline flight for less than the price of two tanks of gas.

Twenty-one different possibilities were mapped out Thursday by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to connect the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area.

The most expensive options for the routes will also be the ones most appealing to Bay Area commuters.

The options focus on two different routes through the hills, one at Altamont Pass in Livermore and the other through Pacheco Pass through Gilroy.

Travelers moving between San Francisco and Los Angeles will not see much of a difference between the two, but a Pacheco Pass route would almost double the amount of time it takes for passengers to get from San Francisco or Oakland to Sacramento, with only approximately $300,000 in savings overall.

The authority also needs to decide how the trains will move around the Bay Area. Crossing the Bay — on the Dumbarton Bridge or through the Transbay Tube — would shorten the travel time for commuters, but raise construction costs.

The trains — which can reach speeds above 200 miles per hour — will only stop at select stations, including SFO, Oakland Airport and San Jose’s Diridon Station, chosen for their connections to other local transit lines.

Deciding the Northern California rail routes will help the authority determine the financing plan needed to make high-speed rail a reality.

Executive Director Mehdi Morshed said the $40 billion price tag of the project will likely be handled by a three-way split of state money, federal funds and private sector contributions.

The authority will hold a series of public meetings in impacted cities during July. Environmental impact reviews will begin Aug. 23 in San Francisco.

By the numbers

» Could carry up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030.

» Could save approximately 22 million barrels of oil annually.

» Could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 17.6 billion bounds annually by 2030.

- Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority

jgoldman@examiner.com


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

4:22 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 24, 2007 re: "Bay Area given priority status for high-speed rail line"

keenplanner said:
Given the Governor selling out to the Oil and Airline industries, the best way to build this fast might be a alliance between an air carrier like Virgin (who operates some rail lines in England) and UPS or FEDEX who could save millions a year in Fuel and transport costs moving packages between SF and LA during the HSR slow hours.

170 agree | 131 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

4:15 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 24, 2007 re: "Gov. Schwarzenegger urged to spare rail-design funding"

keenplanner said:
BUILD IT NOW! Arnold has taken huge donations from Southwest Airlines and Big Oil. He's a Republican, goddammitt! It's unconscionable that he shouldn't support HSR. There is not one single project available to us that could make as potent a difference in our vehicular emissions and traffic than HSR. Adding a lane doesn't work and never will, sprawl development is cruel to the environment and to the people forced to live in them and commute from them. HSR will take you downtown SF to downtown LA in 2 hours. Try that on United. Also, flying is a huge polluter, nearly as bad as driving. The US is in the stone age compared to Europe and Asia when it comes to transportation. HSR is a bargain compared to adding a lane to Hwy 5, or adding airport capacity, and if you do the numbers, it will pay for itself within 10 years. And planners haven't even factored in its potential to move small freight and mail. Why are we even debating this? JUST BUILD IT!

155 agree | 186 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:06 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 24, 2007 re: "Gov. Schwarzenegger urged to spare rail-design funding"

Juan Pardell said:
High Speed Rail is not just a priority, its a necessity. This concept, is the most innovative way of transporting people across the state with the greatest level of efficiency. Why do so many other countries have high speed rail? Because it works. California, has a greater concentration of business and leisure attractions than most destinations. High Speed Rail, will enhance the capabilities of all population groups to engage in every aspect of what exists not just now, but in the future. I say, "BUILD IT NOW!"

168 agree | 166 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:00 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 12, 2007 re: "State budget mess may halt high-speed rail"

Neal Johnson said:
High Speed Rail (HSR) should be built from LA's Union Station to a new airport at Palmdale when LAX becomes inadequate. If successful, it should be expanded to Sacramento. BART should then be extended to the HSR. Extensions to Las Vegas and Phoenix should also be considered.

170 agree | 190 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:09 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 11, 2007 re: "State budget mess may halt high-speed rail"

Knot2brite said:
In about a minute I could find an airline ticket round trip to LA from SF for $164.00 for a flight that would take an hour and twenty minutes so why would I want to pay fifty bucks one way on a train that takes twice as long to get there?

191 agree | 180 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:00 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 11, 2007 re: "State budget mess may halt high-speed rail"

Examiner Reader said:
how about talking about the new action on Ed Jew this paper is hiding from the public

186 agree | 188 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:38 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 11, 2007 re: "Money issues may block future of high-speed rail"

John F Shields said:
The Ca governor and legislature are UTTERLY without any long-range vision for our state, especially on infrastructure needs including transportation! The main problem is lack of a "Champion". There is NO LEADERSHIP with "clout" or courage to raise taxes and get this thing built! Governor S. is absolutely useless in this regard, and totally politically motivated - does exactly what the BIG 4 moneyed special interests say : airlines, oil companies, automobile manufacturers and road-building lobbies, the guys with REAL bucks and REAL clout! - all are against high speed rail! If anyone reading this is interested in how serious this is, NATIONWIDE, read the 69-page report "INFRASTRUCTURE 2007 - A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE" by the Urban Land Institute. You can download the pdf file at www.uli.org/reports/i18 You will need a "strong" computer to adequately download a 6.47 MB, 69-page, color, file, but it's worth the trouble. Get the "big picture" here! Good luck when Cal hits 50m pop'n !

149 agree | 167 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:33 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 29, 2007 re: "Local leaders map out high-speed rail tracks"

Examiner Reader said:
many good, quality comments on this topic, esp a samuelson's. it's important to let the elected leaders know the support it gets from the community. i hope they plan it in a way that discourages sprawl - probably the most damaging effect on the environment.

736 agree | 210 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:17 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 28, 2007 re: "Bay Area given priority status for high-speed rail line"

Jon Schneider said:
It is so obvious that we need this high-speed rail system in our state. I am amazed at the large percentage of people who do not agree. Do these people think they will lose the "freedom" their vehicles provide while being led from the ring in their noses by auto and oil companies, ect? Does anybody remember National City Lines or the destrucion of the Key and Pacific Electric Systems? Am I the only person who finds it funny that at about the same time Japan introduced bullit trains, we decreased our number of intercity trains by half. Then shortly thereafter we had an oil embargo! We need to have choices available so we do not leave a legacy to our children which destroys our environment and natural resources! Beyond any shadow of doubt, we need high-speed rail!

198 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:58 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 21, 2007 re: "Bay Area given priority status for high-speed rail line"

andrew samuelsen said:
Yes, nothing but benefits except for the cost... but, nothing is free!!! Think of the benefits to not only the environment and road/airport congestion, but to the economy in terms of increases in tourism throughout the state, money saved by reduced transportation costs availible for other aspects of the economy, political capital for federal funding in the rest of the USA and state, jobs increased for all reasons above, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. "Get the word out"about high speed rail and put some pressure on our state government to begin this project sooner than later.

199 agree | 136 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:49 AM MST on Tue., May. 29, 2007 re: "Bay Area given priority status for high-speed rail line"

Aaron Priven said:
Given the difficulty and expense of expanding airports in California, high speed rail is the most cost-effective way of increasing the number of airport gates available for long-distance and international flights.

234 agree | 229 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:04 AM MST on Sat., May. 26, 2007 re: "Bay Area given priority status for high-speed rail line"

Examiner Reader said:
Its about time the nay-sayers look at all of the benefits of having this project started as soon as possible. If we are looking at the overcrowded freeways, the health of our environment, delayed airport flights, and $10 a galon gasoline pridiction, IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO GO?

245 agree | 216 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:37 AM MST on Sat., May. 26, 2007 re: "Bay Area given priority status for high-speed rail line"

Examiner Reader said:
Definitely. I don't see the negative effect of a high speed rail in California. I would rather ride this train then sitting on a very tight space airplane for an hour.

221 agree | 198 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:58 AM MST on Fri., May. 25, 2007 re: "Bay Area given priority status for high-speed rail line"

Examiner Reader said:
Absolutely. California should look no further than Japan and the countries in Europe to see the benefits of high speed rail. Efficient passenger rail service will reduce auto congestion, speed freight service, and ultimately help the environment.

263 agree | 237 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
 
 

(page generated in 0.13 seconds)