Plans for a California high-speed rail failed to receive sufficient financial backing from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal Monday ““ a short-sighted decision aimed at pleasing voters who are impatient of a long-term solution for freeway congestion.
Schwarzenegger ignores a strong long-term solution to our state’s traffic and pollution problems ““ ironic considering his picture on the cover of Newsweek’s “Leadership and The Environment” issue last month.
According to the California High-Speed Rail Authority ““ a nine-member state agency in charge of planning for the high-speed rail ““ the project outlines a 700-mile long route that runs from San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento in the north through the Central Valley and down to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south.
Critics have been quick to dismiss the railway for the past year due to the sheer size and time-scale of the plan. Such a system requires a $33 billion price tag and won’t be completed until 2020.
But political decisions in response to immediate demands can create lasting, harmful effects. Los Angeles’ pitiful public transportation system and constant freeway gridlock ““ caused by urban sprawl and Los Angeles’ auto addiction ““ are current examples of short-term planning gone terribly wrong.
According to public policy Professor Michael Dukakis, the California high-speed rail can have immense environmental benefits by providing energy-efficient transportation and making Californians less dependent on their cars. He acknowledged the need to overcome political hurdles against this proposal.
“The challenge that faces California on the issue (of building a high-speed rail) is finding the political leadership to lead this effort,” Dukakis said in an e-mail interview. “There are good people in the legislature that support it. For reasons I don’t understand, however, the governor won’t take leadership on the issue. He should.”
UCLA students see the positive impact of advancing the high-speed rail, while Schwarzenegger and voters should take on a more progressive view.
“I think the benefit of (a high-speed rail) is that, if it’s easily accessible, it’d be a good alternative to driving home and it could be cheaper than a plane ride,” said Tammy Nguyen, a third-year political science student.
As an Oakland native, Nguyen noted how her only transportation options for going back home included a six to eight-hour car ride or dealing with the hassle of LAX security when choosing to fly.
Estimations for the high-speed rail’s travel times illustrate a convenient alternative to our current transportation options: the lagging and frustrating security at LAX, the traffic of driving on our freeways, and the sluggish Amtrak trains plagued by stops or delays.
Travel time on the high-speed rail would allow one to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco in three and a half hours and to San Diego in two hours and 16 minutes, according to the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Mitchel Seaman, a first-year cognitive science student and San Diego native, drives his car to get home. Seaman acknowledged how traffic on L.A. highways typically extends his trips past the expected two and a half hours.
“A high-speed train would be beneficial. And if I didn’t have to have a car at school, I wouldn’t, especially since traffic and parking in L.A. is such a problem,” Seaman said.
And traffic will only get worse, as the population of California is expected to increase by 15 million people over the next 25 years, according to Dukakis.
By investing in the California high-speed rail, Schwarzenegger has the opportunity to not only solve the state’s most pressing traffic problems, but also emerge as an environmental leader.
If you find a copy of Schwarzenegger’s Newsweek cover, contact Chung at lchung@media.ucla.edu.
Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.