High-speed rail projects angle for scarce transportation funds.

Despite its pie-in-the-sky image and eye-popping price tag, high-speed rail in L.A. and California is an idea that just won't die.

Five years ago the only project being seriously considered was a statewide high-speed rail line; today, there are no fewer than five proposals on the drawing boards.

"It all has to do with the topography of Southern California and of California as a whole, where you have two choices: drive or fly," said Richard Silver, executive director of the Rail Passenger Association of California. "People are realizing they want alternatives to these two options and transportation planners are picking up on that."

At the forefront of the proposals is the statewide high-speed rail project that would initially link L.A. and San Francisco but which ultimately is planned to extend from San Diego to Sacramento at an estimated cost of $25 billion to $27 billion. In November 2004, California voters will be asked to approve a $10 billion bond measure--$9 billion of which would go to fund the $14 billion L.A.-to-San Francisco line.

Next month, the California High Speed Rail Authority will issue a preliminary environmental impact report on the project, outlining proposed routes, costs and environmental impacts. Sometime early next year, a final EIR, with a recommended route, will be issued.

Meanwhile, four other projects have surfaced--or resurfaced. These include the revival of a high-speed train from Anaheim to Las Vegas; two routes connecting West Los Angeles to airfields in Ontario and Palmdale; and a new proposal for a high-speed link from Union Station in downtown L.A. to northern Orange County.

Trouble is, each one of these would cost billions of dollars, in addition to the $27 billion price tag for the full statewide system. And funding all of them remains an open question, causing critics to say the renewed interest in high-speed rail is misplaced.

"Do we really need to spend all this money on these proposals when there are ways to move people from point 'A' to point 'B' for much less?" said James Moore, professor of civil and environmental engineering and public policy at USC. "We should be looking at dedicated busways and improvements to our already existing highways and airports."

What's more, each of these proposals is proceeding along separate tracks. "There's no coordination here to make sure that if and when all these systems get built, people will be able to go from one to the other with ease," Silver said.

Gambler's Express

A major problem is the lack of consensus over which high-speed rail technology to use. There are two main competing technologies: a souped-up version of the traditional "steel-wheel" trains that have been traversing tracks around the globe for nearly two centuries, and magnetic levitation--or Maglev--that uses magnetic motors in the rails to accelerate trains.

The statewide north-south high-speed rail project will use the steel-wheel technology, laying down new track to allow trains to go up to 220 miles per hour. At that top speed--with a handful of stops--passengers can travel from L.A. to San Francisco in about two-and-a-half hours. That's about the time it takes to fly between the two cities, factoring in waiting times.

Advocates say this technology has a proven record with the Japanese "bullet trains" and the French TGV train and is less expensive to build than Maglev.

But all the other routes would use Maglev technology, which advocates say is quieter and allows trains to accelerate more swiftly.

At 270 miles, the Anaheim to Las Vegas Super Speed Train is the longest of the proposed Maglev routes. It also has the longest history, extending more than 20 years. By 1990, Bechtel Corp. had been selected as the main contractor and environmental planning was well under way on what had come to be known as the "gambler's express." Then recession hit and Bechtel shelved the plans.

The proposal re-emerged in the late 1990s, with an important difference. Rather than a one-shot Anaheim to Las Vegas ran, the line would be built in segments extending from each endpoint, each of which would supposedly be self-sufficient. Total cost would run between $8 billion and $10 billion, according to project officials.

"Our intention is to develop both ends and work to the middle, just like Southern Pacific and Union Pacific did in building the Transcontinental Railroad," said Neil Cummings, president of American Magline Group, the L.A.-based consortium under contract to plan and build the train route. The consortium includes General Atomics and Parsons Corp.'s transportation subsidiary. "Besides, this would also rid us of the unfortunate misnomer of the 'gambler's express.'"

Tapping Congress

Cummings said the most self-sufficient segment would likely be the Anaheim to Ontario link, which could whisk people to Ontario Airport in 20 minutes. But because of its higher cost and difficulties in building in a dense urban corridor, this segment would not be first. Instead, Cummings said, the 40-mile Nevada portion would likely be the first to be built.

Project officials with the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission are now trying to secure $1 billion in funding for that Nevada portion from Congress, billing it as a "demonstration project." They hope to tap into a pot of money Congress has set aside for development of magnetic levitation technology. Other cities in the running for those funds are Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

After that initial funding, Cummings said the plan is to rely mostly on revenue bonds to fund future segments.

Meanwhile, the Southern California Association of Governments has been quietly working up a plan to build up to 275 miles of Maglev train routes throughout the region, starting with a route from West Los Angeles to Ontario Airport, with at least one stop in downtown L.A.

Project consultant Al Perdon said the plan initially called for linking Los Angeles International Airport with Ontario Airport. But cities around LAX opposed that plan, saying it was a backdoor way to increase passenger traffic at LAX. Instead, Perdon said, the western terminus is now likely to be around the Veterans Administration property in West L.A.

Perdon said SCAG is seeking $60 million from a transportation reauthorization bill now working its way through Congress to complete the planning of this phase. The total cost of the West L.A. to Ontario line is put at about $4 billion; the rest would come from a mixture of federal funding and revenue bonds, Perdon said.

Other ideas

Another high-speed rail route at the top of SCAG's priority list would go to the airfield at Palmdale, either from that same West L.A. location or from Union Station.

Both of these routes would likely make extensive use of existing freeway right-of-way, Perdon said. "We really would like to use the airspace above the freeways. In talking with the California Department of Transportation, they believe it can be done."

Finally, in a separate effort, a newly formed consortium of cities in Southeast L.A. County is pushing for a high-speed rail line from Union Station to northern Orange County. Called the Orange Line, it would end either in Anaheim or Santa Ana.

This high-speed rail line--estimated to cost more than $1 billion--would use an existing rail right-of-way once traversed by the old Pacific Electric line, according to South Gate Mayor Hector de la Torre, who chairs the consortium.

De la Torre said a top priority of this project would be its ability to connect to other high-speed rail projects. "If the California High Speed Rail line goes to Union Station, we will go to Union Station. If the Anaheim to Las Vegas line gets built, we would likely go to Anaheim," he said.

He added that funding for the line would be a mixture of direct government funding and revenue bonds.

But critics say that of all the proposed lines, this is the one least likely to get built, pointing to conventional rail lines or dedicated busways as being preferable.

"It's such a short distance to go with Maglev," Silver said. "You can't possibly get up to full speed to take advantage of the Maglev technology. So why spend more than $1 billion on this?"

Indeed, that very question dogs virtually every one of these proposals. While the concept of high-speed rail is appealing on first blush, the billions of dollars needed to fund these lines may be hard for the public to swallow.

"The difficulty is that there is only so much funding to go around," Cummings said.

This funding crisis could start showing up as early as this fall. Backers of the California High Speed Rail project are now lobbying Congress for a commitment for the $4 billion to $5 billion balance--assuming voters approve the $10 billion in bonds.

Without that commitment, backers acknowledge that selling that bond measure to voters next year will be difficult.

In the longer term, high-speed rail proponents say they believe public discontent with congested highways and the difficulties of air travel will overcome this funding shortage.

"We're approaching the point where people are willing to pay the big bucks to set up these systems," Silver said. "But in order to get voter approval, the benefits of each project are going to have to be clearly spelled out and the costs addressed up front."

RELATED ARTICLE: Traveling the globe.

HIGH-speed rail systems in Europe and Asia have taken off over the past few decades and become the model for efforts in the United States, where only one line is in operation.

Japan's Shinkansen "Bullet Train," Germany's InterCity Express and France's Trains a Grande Vitesse (TGV) have successfully reduced travel times and increased traffic among the major cities served, according to a 1997 report from the Federal Railroad Administration.

The Shinkansen, built in 1964, was the world's first high-speed rail. It began as a 300-mile connection between Tokyo and Osaka, Japan's two largest cities. At the time, the trip took nearly four hours, but improvements have since boosted its speed to heady 150 mph and cut the connection time in half. A round trip currently costs about $160. The Tokyo-Osaka route has been a financial success and taken market share from the airlines, with six times as many trains on the route as there are flight departures.

France's TGV, which began in 1981 between Paris and Lyon, has carried more than 700 million passengers and spawned connections to major cities throughout Europe. Last June, TGV opened a new link between northern France to Marseille on the Mediterranean coast.

Early 1999 saw the go-ahead for the latest arm of the TGV network, a 198-mile line linking Paris and eastern France scheduled to begin service in 2007.

Germany's InterCity Express began in 1991 with service between Hamburg and Munich. That service is expanding, but has had problems. In 1998, a train derailed and killed more than 100 people. Last year's new connection between Cologne and Frankfurt was reported to he traveling at only 32 percent capacity.

In the United States, meanwhile, Amtrak's Acela service on the Northeast Corridor, which started in late 2000 (a year behind schedule), cut travel time from Boston to Washington from tour-and-a-half to three hours. Though faster than the Metroliner, Acela has been unable to operate at its top speed of 150 mph because of track conditions and has suffered service interruptions due to equipment failures.--Michael Thuresson