Ready for the Fast Track

Californians long have disparaged the idea of a high-speed train as something both quaint and futuristic. Fine for France or Japan perhaps, but not for the vast Golden State, where the auto rules. The cost seemed outlandish, and commuter flights were so convenient. But that was then; now, traffic-choked, airport-deficient California is more ready to consider a high-speed rail network.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority, created by the Legislature in 1996, has developed plans for a 700-mile system that would cost $25billion over two decades.

The system’s sleek trains would be expected to speed passengers in comfort at 200 mph or more--taking just 21/2 hours to travel from downtown Los Angeles to downtown San Francisco.

The first and key leg would have 400 miles of high-speed track from Los Angeles to San Jose, costing an estimated $12 billion. Half of the money would come from a state bond issue, proposed by Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and slated to be put to state voters as early as November. Costa’s SB 1856 faces its first hearing Tuesday. The rest of the money would come from federal transportation matching funds and potential private sources such as parking lot operators and the manufacturers of the train equipment.

The California train is not fantasy. France has operated its popular TGVs for more than 20 years at speeds averaging up to 186 mph, with test runs as high as 320 mph. Germany runs 216 trains daily at up to 200 mph. A popular rail guide calls the trains “big, bold and beautiful with an emphasis on passenger comfort.” Amtrak’s popular new Acela train in the Northeast, although not as fast, features electric outlets, phone booths and video and audio entertainment in first-class sections. Acela ridership in the Boston-Washington corridor equals that of commuter air service.

The cost is within reason. Compare the $6-billion bond issue with the more than $10 billion that the State Water Project, approved in 1960, would have cost in today’s dollars. It is well within the state’s bonding capacity.

Rail service would ease congestion at airports and on freeways and potentially contribute to downtown redevelopment efforts.

Would Californians use the service? Southern California’s Metrolink commuter trains prove that they will, if they get fast, comfortable service at competitive rates. There may be some concern about safety since the April 23 wreck in Orange County, but high-speed rail systems worldwide, running on dedicated track, have compiled remarkable safety records.

Amtrak is struggling with losses nationally but lists California as one of its best ridership markets.

There is no longer a major dispute over which system to pursue. Magnetic levitation, once touted as the future of rail, has lost out because steel-wheel trains can travel on conventional tracks.

There are wild cards in the scenario, including Amtrak’s iffy future and the question of Washington’s willingness to help foot the bill. The Legislature could delay a vote until 2004. But the argument for better rail service between California’s major cities has never been stronger.