Finally, after decades wandering in the desert of self-doubt, we can get our mojo back and yell "Eureka!" again.
All it'll take is a thumbs-up from a majority of California voters on $9.95 billion in bonds to start high-speed rail.
California is supposed to be smart, cool and ahead of its time. But, 49 years after Japan began building the first high-speed train system, we're stuck in the past -- traveling up and down the state primarily in cars and planes.
Despite our tardiness -- by now Europe and Japan have expansive high-speed rail networks -- we can make a bold statement by investing in 200 mph trains whisking riders from Fresno to San Francisco in about an hour.
We've talked up high-speed rail for more than a decade. Now, with Californians feeling the pain at the pump and put off by the cost and inconvenience of air travel, the talk is tantalizingly close to reality.
There are opponents. Some believe that high-speed rail won't work because of the state's spread-out population. Others say that the state shouldn't shoulder more debt. Airlines don't want the competition. And interests in Sacramento and the East Bay question high-speed rail simply because they aren't on the initial route.
Is the first phase of the system perfect?
No. But, it's a great start.
"Anyone who has studied the European and Japanese systems knows you build incrementally," says Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno. "No entity ever has the ability to finance an entire system at the start."
The first route would run through the heart of the San Joaquin Valley. Don't kid yourself, the alignment isn't because northern and southern interests love us. It's because we're between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Now, allow me to knock down arguments against high-speed rail.
If the price scares you, know this: meeting intercity travel demands through 2020 with more airports and highways would cost twice as much -- $80 billion -- as high-speed rail. And private money will go into the rail system, so it won't rely solely on taxpayer dollars.
The trains would create another option for getting from Fresno and other Valley cities to Los Angeles and the Bay Area. They also would break down transportation barriers that discourage outside investment in the Valley.
Rail would augment highways and airports -- unclogging these systems, accommodating growth and safely transporting riders in an environmentally friendly way.
High-speed rail isn't a risk-free proposition. Despite rosy projections of $1 billion annual profits by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the system might need public operating subsidies.
But, if we delay building, the system would only get more expensive and complicated as development encroaches on proposed corridors.
Besides, we're leaders.
Come November, we should show the rest of the country that California still has the vision and will to pull off something as grand as high-speed rail.
E-mail story
Printer friendly page
Subscribe to Print
