This article, that recently appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, describes the decision of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to endorse two different high-speed rail routes to Los Angeles, one over Pacheco Pass, and the other over Altamont Pass. While both of these routes have their own pros and cons, it seems crazy to endorse two routes when the price tag of the project is already high. However, the route over Pacheco Pass appears to have more problems associated with it, including environmental and ridership issues. Nevertheless, it appears that that route will likely be built before the Altamont route.
It's disappointing that in California, where the political persuasion is relatively liberal, the governing bodies haven't been able to come up with a solid plan for how this rail system should be built. Traffic between the Bay Area and the LA Basin will only increase in the coming decades, and this project is becoming more and more urgent for the transportation future of the state. California citizens need to voice their opinions to their legislators, because without a strong public backing for this project, it won't leave the station. While it's fair to criticize certain state leaders who have lavishly spent copious amounts of money "researching" high-speed rail on trips to France, that doesn't diminish the urgency of the project, or the necessity for citizens to pressure their legislators to do the right thing. High-speed rail works elsewhere, and it can work in California. Let's just hope that bureaucracy and political wrangling don't keep this project from becoming a reality.
