When Californians voted in 2008 to spend billions to grease the wheels of a high-speed train service running down the spine of the state, there was great cheering among those advocating for the same type of system in Canada.
Soon after the California vote, campaigns to build much-studied bullet train proposals in Alberta and another between Ontario and Quebec cranked up anew. With the U.S. seemingly at the threshold of pushing ahead on the high-speed front, the question was asked: Did Canada want to be left behind at the station?
Europe was already years ahead of North America when it came to trains that rocketed along at speeds of up to 300 kilometres an hour. Meantime, Japan, China and Korea were building train systems right out of the futuristic utopia portended in The Jetsons.
Well, if high-speed believers here were hoping that California would serve as a catalyst for a turbo-charged rail service or two of our own, we bear bad news. It looks like the California initiative is deader than Ron Paul's presidential hopes.
When the state's voters authorized $9-billion (U.S.) in state bonds three years ago to get things going on the proposed 836-kilometre track from San Diego to San Francisco, it was based on an overall estimated cost of $33-billion.
"Since then," writes Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, "the high-speed dream has become a slow-motion nightmare and we might be better off running a zip line from Mt. Shasta to Mt. Baldy."
Here are some of the updated facts: The projected completion date has been pushed back to 2033, from 2020. More jarring, the estimated cost has grown to $117-billion, with no assurances that it won't be much higher. The California High Speed Rail Authority, established in the mid-1990s with the specific intent of getting a bullet line built, is now saying that the project represents an "immense financial risk" to the state.
A state, it needs no reminding, that was at risk of declaring bankruptcy not that long ago and remains in desperate financial straits.
Needless to say, the public's mood has turned against the high-speed rail scheme in a big way. Its concerns are wide-ranging and include worries that the technology proposed for the California line is already out of date. Japan, South Korea and China have built mass transportation systems using new-age magnetic levitation trains that glide above guideways.
A poll last fall showed that two-thirds of Californians are now firmly against the project. One resident that Mr. Lopez interviewed spoke for many who are now deeply skeptical about the viability of the plan: "If they're saying $100-billion, that means it'll be $200-billion."
It may be years now, if ever, before the state is in a position to undertake such an expensive endeavour. And even if the project is eventually green-lighted, it would take 20 years to build. What this means for U.S. President Barack Obama's grand vision of a network of high-speed trains jetting people about the country is unclear.
In 2009, the President dangled $13-billion in stimulus spending to promote investment in high-speed rail. California represented the best immediate hope of getting anything going. Florida was the next best hope and it said no to high-speed a year ago over cost concerns.
The most developed proposals in Canada are for a line that goes from Quebec City to Windsor, Ont., and another that stretches from Calgary to Edmonton. Well, we know what kind of fiscal shape the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec are in so there's zero chance they'll be providing any dollars in the near future to pursue any high-speed rail proposal.
Alberta would be the one province that might have the financial wherewithal to mount a serious effort. But despite its oil wealth, it has its own financial concerns and it's likely that the goings-on in California will kill any appetite there might have been for the idea.
So for the foreseeable future, North Americans looking for high-speed rail thrills will have to go to Europe or Asia. We'll be staying in our cars and complaining about the commute.
Gary Mason