Proposition 1A--Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
What is it?
Proposition 1A authorizes the State to issue $9.5 billion in bonds to establish electric high-speed rail between major population centers in California. Starting with the San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim corridor, the overall project, with an estimated total price tag of $45 billion, will eventually connect to Sacramento, the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego.
Of the $9.5 billion, 90% must be spent on construction. The remaining $95 million can be spent to upgrade existing rail in order to provide improved access to the high-speed rail. The act requires matching funds from public and private funding sources and is subject to review for adequate funding and planning before the State can appropriate funds.
How Much will it Cost?
Total of principal and interest on the $9.5 billion would add up to $19.4 billion on this phase of the project, or $645 million per year over the next 30 years.
Also, once the rail is up and running (in its entirety) there is a projected operational cost of $1 billion annually which would be offset (to an unknown extent) by fares.
Discussion:
This is a tough one to call. The pros and cons, imo, are fairly evenly split.
Opponents correctly point out that we are in financially uncertain times and draw the conclusion that "now is not the time" to invest in high-speed rail. Somewhat at odds with their own "now is not the time" argument, they suggest that it would be better to invest our infrastructure dollars on improvements to daily commute--regular rail, highway improvements, etc. They also claim that the project would be run by Parsons Brinkerhoff, one of the project managers of Boston's infamous "Big Dig." But although Parsons Brinkerhoff is a contributor to the pro-1A campaign, I couldn't find any proof that a contract exists. Indeed, it would be putting the cart quite in front of the horse to "hire" them for a project that's not yet funded.
Proponents argue that electric, high-speed rail is a safe, clean, affordable alternative to plane and car travel. They hit on current political hot buttons of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. And they make a strong argument that investment in light rail would be a huge job creation force in the near and longer-term future. (160,000 construction jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs in the rail line and related industries.)
I've gone back and forth quite a bit on this proposition. While I agree that California is not in a position to frivolously spend more money, I am not sure this project is frivolous. In fact, my answer to the statement that "now is not the time" is to question, "if not now, when?" Eventually we will need a statewide alternative to fuel-based transportation. The price tag has got to be cheaper now. Moreover, one of the components of government action that helps lift an economy out of difficult times is investment in infrastructure. Remember the WPA?
The argument about reduced dependence on foreign oil also resonates with me. As oil prices continue to rise (which they will...limited supply plus ever-increasing international demand equals higher price), it will become increasingly expensive to travel by plane or car between Northern and Southern California. As a former executive (and a person with many friends who still fly up to NoCal at least monthly), I can see high-speed rail becoming increasingly more cost-effective and an excellent alternative to air travel.
Tourism would also benefit from rail connections between Northern and Southern California. Currently folks who want to travel from San Francisco to SoCal have only two options--fly or drive. The third option of high-speed rail would be attractive to international travellers already comfortable with bullet trains. And, as CALPIRG points out, the $45 billion price tag for high-speed rail is about $42 billion less than what our increasing population would need in road and airport infrastructure if we don't add a high-speed rail transportation alternative.
In short, my initial reluctance to support ANY bond measure was overcome by three things:
Job Creation
Alternative to oil-based transportation
Investment in California's infrastructure and tourism industry
Laura's Vote: Yes
Links:
Yes on 1A
No on 1A
League of Women Voters--In Depth Analysis of 1A
CALPIRG