Great what if article about a project that should really be built along the entire west coast.
2 Hours to L.A.—why not?
Instead of embracing high-speed rail as a key part of California’s transit destiny, the governor seems to be orchestrating a prolonged death for the bullet train
By Melinda Welsh
The year is 2020. It’s Friday after the workweek from hell, and John Bowie can’t wait for 5 p.m. to roll around. An Analyst II at the state Department of Education, John is set to sprint to the Sacramento rail station, jump on a bullet train and hang out with friends over beers in the café car during the two hours it takes to get to Los Angeles. When the train pulls into Union Station, John will catch the Metro or walk over to the Staples Center and watch the newly reorganized Sacramento Kings slug it out playoff-style with the L.A. Lakers. After the win (hey, the game went into overtime again!), John will hop back on the 220-mph bullet, snooze ’til Sacramento, arrive home by 1:30 a.m. and crash to sleep knowing he’s in no danger of missing his daughter’s soccer game the next morning in McKinley Park.
The whole journey there and back again took a fraction of the hassle, time and energy it would have taken to fly. No standing in line, no security screenings, no seat assignments, no baggage check--and, wow, more spacious seats. It cost him $48 roundtrip. If John had driven to Los Angeles for the game, it would have taken six times the energy and cost him plenty more in gas and an overnight stay. Plus, he would have missed his daughter’s game.
Welcome to transportation’s future.
Or so it should be.
Somehow, though, instead of embracing high-speed rail as a key component of California’s transit destiny, the state’s politician-in-chief, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, seems to be orchestrating a prolonged and tortured death for the bullet train.
This is despite the fact that a state agency designated to oversee the project already has spent 10 years and $30 million studying the trains, engineering routes, conducting environmental-impact reports and devising a business plan for a state-of-the-art, high-speed-transit system that would stretch from San Francisco to San Jose, Sacramento to the Central Valley, Los Angeles to San Diego.
The distinguished-looking Mehdi Morshed, with his shock of white hair and earnest demeanor, is executive director of the agency in question: the California High-Speed Rail Authority. On the eve of the release of the governor’s new budget, he didn’t mince words when asked about Schwarzenegger and high-speed rail: “If he comes out to terminate it, that’s a disaster for California,” he said.
The people of California seem to agree. When last asked in 2003, two-thirds of the state’s citizens favored high-speed rail; earlier, in 1999, 62 percent even said they would pay for its construction.
It’s no secret, meanwhile, that many countries around the world have utilized modern rail technology for decades, recognizing it as faster, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than other modes of transport.
So what’s the holdup here? For that matter, why can’t a single state in the union get a high-speed-rail system out of the gates? Worthy efforts have been launched--especially in Texas and Florida--but they have been killed by politics, quashed by the highway lobby or simply ignored to death.
