Bullet Train: Benefit or Burden?

When officials first considered building a 220 mph bullet train more than a decade ago, they focused on one goal: faster travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

Day trips to Disneyland, anyone?

Now supporters say there’s more to sell. Increasingly, the electric train is viewed as a way to reduce tailpipe emissions in California and combat global warming.

Not everyone believes that a high-speed rail system, if built, would solve environmental problems without creating new ones. One proposed route, for example, travels through ecologically sensitive wetlands. A bullet train also could sprout growth in previously undeveloped areas.

“We’ll have both the benefit and the burden in this region,” said Carol Whiteside, director of the Modesto-based Great Valley Center, which monitors growth and transportation.

Environmental reports prepared by the California High-Speed Rail Authority say that system could accommodate 117 million passengers by 2030. This could take millions of cars off the road, decreasing the number of miles driven in California by about 5 percent.

Other concerns include:

» Anywhere from about 750 to 1,380 acres of farmland could be destroyed to build track in the northern area, depending on where the train crosses into the Valley.

Still, the impacts would be less than the impacts of widening major highways, officials say. And, where possible, track would be constructed along existing transportation routes.

» Trains also could encourage new development. Rail officials say growth will be concentrated around existing cities to preserve open space.

» Tracks would travel over wetlands that provide habitat for 1 million waterfowl and nearly 50 sensitive species. The project “risks destroying” the ecology if not studied carefully, according to the Los Banos-based Grassland Resource Conservation District.

Should California build the bullet train?

Pros: (1) Reduce tailpipe emissions; (2) Take millions of cars off the road (estimate); (3) Encourage new development (4) Better to do this than widen the highways

Cons: (1) Tracks travel through ecological wetlands (2) Spur growth in areas undeveloped (3) Costly to build

Economists often discuss decisions like these using terms, such as opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the cost of the next best alternative and/or what you give up when you make a choice. Therefore, in this case, you agree that California should build the bullet train, then the opportunity cost of this decision is:

Loss of ecological wetlands and species (damage to the environment)

Growth in areas undeveloped leading to additional environmental damage

High cost of building the train, which is money that could be used differently

Thus, by deciding to build the train, you would say the pros outweigh the cons.

I wouldn’t favor building the bullet train, because the solution creates too many additional environmental problems and does not really solve the number of cars on the road issue. I would prefer state government focusing on:

Job growth in cities where there are residential areas (reduction of commuters)

Public transportation within cities