»In which transit never comes quickly

The Examiner points out that the State of California is at least thirty years behind Japan, France, et al., when the matter of intercity transit comes up. And they should also point out that the City of San Francisco is at least fifteen minutes behind whatever municipal railway schedule is in place.

Study high-speed rail, keep S.F. central

Getting from place to place in California has always faced one enormous difficulty: the sheer size of the state, with major urban areas north and south hundreds of miles apart. Add to this problem the modern challenge of a highway system that doesn’t come close to keeping pace with the booming population, plus the cost and capacity restrictions of air travel, and the options for swift, simple travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco are few.

In fact, the most viable solution seems to be rail travel, which in other countries is a mode of fast transport that is popular and efficient. In France, the TGV train system started development in the 1960s and began operation in 1981. In Japan, the Shinkansen, or bullet train,” came on line in 1964. As much as Californians love their cars, the state — like much of the rest of the United States — has fallen behind this modern mode of transportation for decades.

Advocates of a high-speed train system linking the Bay Area with Southern California are studying how to make such a system work, an important project that deserves the attention of decision-makers at the state and local level.

That doesn’t mean that we need to tie the state to any particular plan right now, though. Should trains run on traditional steel rails, or use magnetic levitation or some other technology? Should a high-speed rail system be funded through public bonds or should the state seek a partnership with private entities? What route should a train take between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, and where should it stop along the way? The experts, government officials and the public will continue to hash out the details for a long time.

One thing should be clear going forward, though. The high-speed rail system must serve San Francisco as a terminus or major stop, rather than bypassing The City for a location in the East Bay or relegating it to an inefficient spur of the system. This is not about bulk cargo transport, where geography favors ship-train-truck connections in Oakland. High-speed rail is primarily about moving people, and when it comes to our local economy of ideas, San Francisco is where people need to go.

There have been rumblings from East Bay politicians that they would like to bring the trains there instead of San Francisco. These rumblings should be taken seriously — as a threat to both the practicality of the high-speed rail system and the political consensus that would be needed to get it rolling. It may be possible to develop a configuration that serves both San Francisco and the cities on the Bay’s eastern shore. But regardless of the final form any high-speed rail might take, residents and The City’s elected representatives in the state Legislature and in Congress should be unequivocal in their position that San Francisco must be a major component.