Akascribe A personal blog covering all manner of subjects

There is a debate playing out politically in California about high-speed rail.  After a voter initiative passed in 2008 calling for the construction of a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco, opponents are now trying to (please forgive me) derail the plan.  Their beef?  It would cost too much and be too difficult.

Last summer, I rode the Eurostar train from Paris to London during a family vacation.  It took two and one-quarter hours to get from one central rail station to the other, leaving any consideration of flying the same route unimaginable.  Once you factor in the transfer times to and from an urban airport, the extra time involved in clearing security, and the inherent delays with air travel, making the journey by rail is the hands-down winner, even at double the cost, although with advanced ticket purchase our rail fares were no more than the going commercial airfare.

I lived in England during the 1970s and I remember the hue and cry attendant with boring the Channel Tunnel and obtaining the rights of way for high-speed rail.  The French had no such qualms – they built their portion of high-speed track way before the Brits did – but despite cost overruns and delays the system has been a runaway success.  I’m sure Europeans could not envision going back to a time when the Continent was not connected to Britain by high-speed rail.  Or the major cities on the Continent itself.

So why are we Californians dragging our feet?  Eurostar was completed almost two decades ago (in 1994) and involved one of the largest engineering feats in history, digging three separate tunnels under the English Channel (the third tunnel is a smaller, central one needed for service purposes).  Connecting Northern and Southern California requires so such heavy lifting and, lest we forget, the transcontinental railroad that did involve some major engineering (to climb over the Sierra Nevada) was built  a century and a half ago.  Interest rates are at a historic low and unemployment is still relatively high, strategically an ideal time to build a large infrastructure project.

Nevertheless, opponents of the project have turned rail into a dirty word, trotting out arguments that focus on funding complexities or a concern over potential users.  But these critics are being disingenuous.  Their real objection is borne of ignorance.  They just don’t understand what it means to live in a rail-oriented culture.

The Japanese get it, as do the Europeans.  Who wants to drive a car 350 miles or fly a busy air corridor when you can travel safely and serenely at 200+ mph while having a leisurely meal, reading a book, or doing some work.  And not have to burn fossil fuels in the process.

As the current presidential election cycle has shown, in certain American circles (mostly conservative ones, as far as I can tell) it has become fashionable to denigrate European culture.  Anything European automatically smacks of socialism and appeasement.  Well, to those who wish to criticize, I can only say:  have you actually visited there and tried it?  I defy anyone, even the most rock-ribbed Republican, to travel from the Gare du Nord to St. Pancras Station, yes even while sipping a nice Chardonnay and nibbling on some quiche, and tell me with a straight face that he’d rather shuttle to SFO, endure the vicissitudes of commercial airline travel and then rent a car at LAX (where public transit is still a joke).  Let me tell you, I’ll have that GOP good ol’ boy singing the Marseillaise and drinking lukewarm English beer faster than you can say “Return your seat backs and tray tables to their upright and locked position.”

So my modest proposal is this:  anyone in the California legislature who intends to vote against high-speed rail must first travel to Europe, courtesy of the taxpayer, and experience it first-hand.  Trust me, it will be cheaper and easier in the long run to foot that bill.