Advocates for a high speed rail system in California have been struggling for nearly 25 years to get funding from the State to “green light” the project. So far, the high speed rail consortium has always fallen short; but circumstances have changed and there is now a real chance that California will be the first state in the country to construct a high speed rail system similar to those in Europe.
The rising price of oil, combined with a growing concern about the environment and traffic gridlock are combining to sway public opinion in California. Proposition 1A would provide an estimated $10 billion of public funds to bankroll a high speed rail line — if it passes. At the moment, polls suggest the proposition will pass with a very slight margin, assuming public opinion remains about the same when Californians go to the polls in November.
The high speed rail being considered would be based out of Los Angeles, and technically would be very similar to the bullet trains that are common in Europe and Japan. Proponents of the project asserts that it will be quicker, cheaper and more environmentally friendly, while providing some relief to the traffic nightmares many Californians face on a daily basis.
The overall concept of the high speed line is to connect Los Angeles with the Bay area and San Francisco. Spur lines would also connect Sacramento and San Diego, and the trains would average approximately 220 mph. The journey from San Francisco to Los Angeles, for example, would reportedly take only 2 ½ hours, costing less than $60.
If Californians approve proposition 1A, work will begin on the high speed line in 2011, and an estimated 160,000 construction jobs would be created in order to complete the project. Once the high speed rail system is completed, an additional 400,000 jobs would be put in place to operate and maintain the lines. This would make the California high speed rail line the biggest public works project in the history of the state.
Critics of the plan say that the final price tag for such a system will be closer to $80 billion, and that the debt-heavy state government cannot afford such an elaborate program. The country’s recent economic woes and the problems on Wall Street are contributing to the notion that the state simply does not have enough money to complete such an ambitious project.
But opponents of the high speed rail line argue that the system will save money in the long run, and reduce traffic gridlock and environmental damage. They also point out that similar high speed “bullet” trains have been operating for years in Europe and Japan, most of which have been recognized as a positive in investment for the infrastructure of the country.
Proponents of high speed trains in other states will be keeping a close watch on the California vote. And with only three weeks until the election, we will soon know if California will host the country’s first high speed rail system.
