California High-Speed Rail Project - Essay Example

Management California High Speed Rail Project Introduction The California High Speed Railway Project (CHSRP) has encountered controversy. Prompted by the installation of high-speed trains globally, the CHSRP was initially proposed in the 1980s by Jerry Brown. The rail was intended to link the Southern and the Northern California. To make the proposal formal, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was instituted to commence the formal planning of the rail system while awaiting a ballot measure, legislation proposal, to determine its fate. The ballot measure was delayed from its scheduled inclusion in the 2004 general elections before the voters to 2006 and later 2008 with an election outcome of 52.7 percent voting in favor of the project (Albalate 15). This approval was for the first segment of the proposed railway system that was dubbed Proposition 1A. As Albalate asserts, the entire project was estimated to cost forty billion dollars, however, the authority responsible for the execution of the plan releases a novel cost estimation ranging between $98.5 billion and $118 billion. The system is anticipated to complete in 2035 whereby it will carry 120,000 riders each day at a speed of 200 miles per hour, if it gets built successfully (16). Despite the gobs of benefits anticipated from the proposed rail system, there has been criticism hitherto. The proposed rail system intends to meet California’s transportation needs of the 21st century. The 800-mile running rail is purposed to connect the major regions of the state such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. With the congestion in the transport systems, it is feasible to implement a system that will help in reducing both the inconveniences and time taken to travel. The state of California experiences severe air pollutions, and to eliminate this, the proposed rail system aims at achieving a cleaner environment wiping out the auto travel, which is the main agent of air pollution. The elimination of autos from the transport system will also reduce the state’s reliance on foreign oils. For other means of transport, the high-speed rail project will enhance connectivity. The rail system is also calculated at contributing to the state’s economic development and job creation for the persistently heightened unemployment characterized population. Besides, the high-speed rail system aspires to protect the preserved, ecologically sensitive, and agricultural lands by reducing the per passenger emissions, during travel, across the state of California (Jones 228). After the completion of the project, Californians have much to benefit from it. Stakeholders of the Project The funding of the first phase of the project is expected to come from the federal government, local authority and the private sector. The CHSRA aligned with Goldman Sachs to prepare a report that required the federal government to commit $16 billion dollars, whereas the private sector was expected to commit $8 billion dollars, with the local government expected to invest the remaining $10 billion dollars. The anticipated surplus of the project is intended to finance the extension, which is the second and last phase of the project (Fleming 30). The project indeed ought to entail joint efforts of the various sectors since the outcome will benefit society as a whole. After an application for the state’s high-speed rail funding by the governor, in 2009, the White House approved $2.35 billion out of the $4.7 billion applied for. In the 2010 report, the White House stated that the funds allocated to California were to be devoted to conventional improvements on the rails and the CHSRP. The project received a further $ 715 billion in the same year from the federal government under condition that it was used for the Fresno to Merced segment. The total commitment by the federal government to California’s high-speed rail projects summed up to $4.3 billion. Although the CHSRA recognizes the federal government’s commitment to the initial segment of the project, it maintains that the evaluation of the segment will be based on its own criteria (Moore, “How Much Prop. 1A will cost”). After Florida rejected its share of the allocation pertaining to high- speed rail funding, the Department of Transportation reallocated $300 million to the CHSRA to help in extending the rail from Fresno to Chowchilla, a 20 mile distance (Eccornucopia 59). The federal government’s commitment is in line with its obligation of initiating projects that enhance the convenience of the citizens. Strategic Triangle In analyzing the viability of a project, the strategic triangle analytical tool is the most practical for effective project evaluation. The analysis, in this context, involves determining the value to be created by the project, the functional feasibility, given the resources available, and whether it is legitimate and the support thereof, that is, the political environment. This analytical tool forces the analyzers to pay emphasis to all the three aspects and not just the ones that tend to favor an intended outcome (Buie, Elizabeth and Dianne 322). The CHSRP being a very vital initiative, sound analysis should be undertaken. a) Public value The project has a myriad of value addition benefits for the state. The first segment is expected to create an average of 66,000 jobs per year during its 15-year implementation stint. In the end, the project is anticipated to create 450,000 jobs of permanent nature for the novel commuters who will be using the system. The commuters can move from one point to another easily in pursuit job searching. Goods will be transported easily and with minimal time, which is a big advantage for the commuters. The state will also collect $2.23 billion in the form of revenue from the San Francisco – Los Angeles route (Jones 226). The short-term and long-term aspects of the project in regard to job creation are favorable for the Californians. Environmental pollution will be reduced by a significant level through the execution of the project. As Williams argues, the project will cause a great deal of environmental pollution in the course manufacturing the oodles of tons of cement required for the construction of the project. The Authority fails to include this consideration in its business plan in its attempt to tap funds from the greenhouse gas reduction projects. Instead, the authority reported an anticipated zero emission and reduced car travel in the state (Lawsuit contests). However, the project will reduce environmental pollution in the end by reducing auto travel in the state by an estimation of 400 billion miles of auto travel. This will amount to 1.5 percent contribution to the state’s objective of reducing carbon emission. The reduced auto travel translates to a reduced reliance on foreign oils by the state, in the end (Randall et al. 17). The state’s fight against greenhouse gas emission is enhanced by the implementation of this project. Economic development is feasible with the completion of the project. The initial requirement of high devotion of funds to set the project going will hurt the states project by reducing funding of other projects. This factor has been the prime basis of the vast opposition the project has encountered. The cost necessary to service the bonds that finance the project are high. Withal, the project is expected to increase economic activities in the end. In return, the economic activities will bring economic development that outweighs the initial commitment. In addition, the project will increase access to goods and amenities and connect other modes of transport in an affordable cost (Randall et al. 17). Despite the initial sacrifice, the project returns outweigh the costs in the long term. In the short run, the proposed project will make efficient use of isolated land and encourage settlement in such places. Nevertheless, the rail system building will render some farms, where it cuts across, unfertile, affect adversely over 180 parks that the proposed route passes through. In the end, the farming losses will be so significant for the Californians and the losses expected from the inconveniencing of the wildlife (Elkind 11). The long run effect of the project raises controversy and lack of support from the farmers. b) Feasibility The project is mere perfect dream. According to Elkind, due to poor economic downturns, the local government has to cut back on planning since they depend on new development permits and applications. Since the rate at which real estate projects take place slows significantly during times of economic downturn, the cutbacks are inevitable. As established, the local governments’ ability to steer the development of the high-speed rail system will be hindered by lack of resources and ability to launch public outreach due to the divided perspective over the project (13). Reed agrees with these sentiments by suggesting that there is no lawmaker who can concur with the entire bill being footed by the taxpayer. The estimated cost has varied over time, $33 billion, then $98 billion and the current $68 billion. The lack of certainty in estimating reasonably the cost of the project translates to an inability of the Authority to undertake the project (7 ways James Fallows is wrong about the CA bullet train). Clearly, the Authority cannot sustain the implementation of the project. The project has insufficient financial support. Over and above the inaccurate estimates of the cost of the project, the state and the federal government only contribute $13 billion to a project that is currently expected to cost $68 billion. Inability to win the support of the private sector affected the prosperity of the proposed project adversely (Reed, “7 ways James Fallows is wrong about the CA bullet train”). The level of financial support is so insignificant for the project to even set off and hence fall short of its viability. c) Legality and support The project has had minimal support based on legal and practicality grounds. The Sacramento Superior Court Judge has blocked the project from commencing because its environmental reviews and financing are inadequate. The judge claims that it is not feasible to start the construction of the 300-mile first phase of the project that was initially projected to cost $31 billion with the level of financing designated for the project. The only lawyers who consider the project legal are the ones work for the Authority and other political entities that back the project (Reed, “7 ways James Fallows is wrong about the CA bullet train”). A project that does not match up to the legal expectations raises suspicion and adversities among the potential investors. Reed avows that the 2008 poll that saw the approval of the project was by mere chance. Presently, polls carried out show that almost 67 percent of the voters are against the project. Contrary to the requirement of projects that are costly and characterized by controversy to have public support, this project has suffered opposition from all points. In any case, even the incoming president of the Senate remarked that it is ‘stupid’ to begin the project in a place with little population instead of starting in most populated regions of the state (7 ways James Fallows is wrong about the CA bullet train). Lack of support from even the prominent lot in society leaves no opportunity of prosperity for the project. Conclusion The California High Speed Railway Project has encountered considerable controversy. Despite the positive intentions, such as reducing greenhouse emission, enhancing economic development, job creation and reducing transport congestion, the projects viability are questionable. The project lacks support from the public and other the public sector, in general. Notwithstanding the voting in favor of it in 2008, voters have had a different perspective on the project. The Authority must tackle the issues behind the deteriorating support; otherwise, the project’s intention will remain far-fetched and unattainable. . Works Cited Albalate, Daniel, and I Q. G. Bel. The Economics and Politics of High-Speed Rail: Lessons from Experiences Abroad. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2012. Print. Buie, Elizabeth, and Dianne Murray. Usability in Government Systems: User Experience Design for Citizens and Public Servants. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2012. Print. Eccornucopia: Restoring Fairness and Prosperity in America. Xlibris Corp, 2014. Print. Elkind, Ethan. How to Build A Better California Around The High Speed Rail. A Journal of High Speed Foundation, August 2013. Print. Fleming, Susan A. High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role. DIANE Publishing, 2009. Print. Jones, Steven L. Urban Public Transportation Systems 2013: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Urban Public Transportation Systems: November 17-20, 2013, Paris, France. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013. Print. Moore, Adrian. How Much Prop. 1A will cost the taxpayers? Los Angeles Times, 21 October, 2008. Web. 14 July 2014. Randall, David P, Frittelli, John and Mallet, William J. High Speed Rail in the United States. DIANE Publishing, 2009. Print. Reed, Chris. 7 ways James Fallows is wrong about the CA bullet train. Watchdog, 11 July 2014. Web. 14 July 2014. Read More