Proposition 1a: High Speed Rail Bonds. Yes or no?

[Auggie]

The thought of a 220 mph train ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles sounds like a blast, but I question the wisdom behind spending $42 billion dollars on a north/south connection when there is such a dire need for public transit at the local level. Not to mention education, health care, etc.

$9.95 billion in general obligation bonds.

What does the California D.U. contingent think?

[bemildred]

1. Tax the rich, I pretty much like pay as you go.

All forms of public mass transit are, of course, a good thing.

[davidinalameda]

2. yes

this is public transportation

this is statewide public transportation

you're right that there is a need for BETTER public transportation on the local level, but I know in my area, some of the agencies are so poorly managed, the money goes into some black hole never to be seen again

[mitchtv]

3. it has my vote

20 years late, but still it's time

[XemaSab]

4. I vote no on bonds

It's like getting a new credit card and maxing it out, then getting another credit card after that.

Eventually the monthly minimums are going to eat into your food budget, ya know?

[proud patriot]

5. I usually vote no on bonds

this time I think it's a good idea to vote Yes though .

Not only does it create jobs , but it also opens up
travel to a whole new group of people and it will be
clean energy .. I take BART in the bay area when
going places around here .

This time it'll pay off IMO

[Xithras]

6. No. No. And no again.

I wish I could find the link, but I found an analysis of the pollution generated by personal driving trips between S.F. and L.A. The numbers were trivial, with only a few hundred residents making that trip every day. A few HUNDRED, in a state with 36+ million people. There aren't a lot of people that travel between the cities every day, and few drive it. Even if you factor in the people who fly between the cities, the number of travellers is only a couple thousand. Again, a trivial amount of overall daily travellers.

Compare that with the MILLIONS of vehicles that crowd our states roads every day on short commutes. Those shorter commutes generate the vast bulk of our pollution and CO2 generation, and yet the high speed rail program will do nothing to address it. When quizzed by the press on the subject, the chair of the CHSRC said, point blank, that relieving traffic congestion wasn't their goal or mission. The ONLY purpose of the rail network is to provide a high speed link between the two cities.

We can spend $42 billion on a high speed rail system that will be used by tourists and business executives travelling between the cities for commerce, or we can spend that $42 billion on LOCAL mass transit and LOCAL rail initiatives that will actually take cars off our roadway.

I just don't see the point of spending $42 billion on a transit project that is going to be useless for 99% of Californians.

[Auggie]

7. That's my take

[cabluedem]

12. Beef up the BART system from valley to bay first.

that's my .02 cents.

[Retrograde]

24. or extend CalTrain to meet BART

it would be a lot cheaper - and probably get done in my lifetime!

[Sirveri]

41. Caltrain does meet BART at San Mateo

They link up. Though it would be nice to complete the loop from Fremont to SJ.

[RexDart]

13. A quick look at yahoo travel shows just under 300 SFO-LAX flights/day

So I can not buy that arguement. Southwest currently lists 44 bay area flights to LAX alone.

I'm a big support of this project. I could see myself making more trips to the LA area. Right now the drive is a pain in the ass and flying is even worse.

[Oerdin]

32. Lots of air travel

There is lots of air travel every day between cities in California so there is plenty of demand. Plus this high speed system could become a back bone of our transit system. Why take an airplane when a 300 mph train is faster and doesn't require a two hour pre check in wait? Compared to all those planes a bullet train uses less energy and puts out less CO2 so it is good for the environment plus consumers always benefit from increased choices. A well diversified transit system will be good for California.

[Xithras]

37. Those flight numbers are deceptive.

And were factored into that same study. Here's the problem with those flight numbers...the vast majority of people who fly from SFO to LAX (and vice-versa) make that connection as part of a longer flight. Either people flying from SFO to catch a connecting flight out of LAX, or the other way around. Since the rail route doesn't go anywhere near LAX, it's hard to believe that ANY travellers are going to use it as an alternative to the first of last leg of their trip. A SF based traveler angling to catch an LAX originating flight to Australia (random example) would need to catch the train AT SFO, ride it for several hours to reach Anaheim, disembark at Anaheim for a local bus, ride that across town to LAX for an hour or so, wait for the notoriously slow security screeners at LAX (SFO's are actually among the faster), and then go to catch their plane.

Or, they could just screen at SFO, take a 45 minute flight, and catch the connection at LAX. If I were the wagering type, that's where my money would be. People who have the money to fly, and who are either going to be flying or who were already flying anyway, aren't going to spend hours sitting on trains and buses when they can grab a 45 minute connector instead.

A few hundred people a day make the trip between the cities and either cannot afford to, or choose not to, fly. High speed rail will be a bonus for them. Since it's a 400 mile road trip, it's easy to understand why so few people make it. In the meantime, our freeways are choked every morning as MILLIONS of cars commute in to work creating regional traffic nightmares. That's the real problem, and the HSR plan does nothing to address it. Even more importantly, the lady in charge of the commission pulled out the old "it's not my job" canard when she was asked about it.

Billions for a transportation plan that ignores our biggest sources of gridlock and pollution? What's the point of that? I'd vote for a $40 billion regional rail plan in a heartbeat, and I'd even support linking local rail systems into a larger statewide network eventually. But a $40 billion plan that deliberatly skirts the most congested areas of the state is simply stupid. It's feel-good greenwashing garbage that will do nothing to alleviate the real traffic and pollution problems we face.

[roody]

8. Okay, I am convinced to vote no, especially since

I can't even take a train to SF from Mendocino County.

[mitchtv]

14. remind me to vote no if they ever try to sell bonds

for the NW Pacific . welcome to the late 20th century .

[roody]

44. There is already rail service between SF and LA. There is not

between Mendocino County and SF.

[bananas]

9. I'm undecided, but leaning yes.

[bananas]

10. Sierra Club Endorses Prop 1A

http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/09/sierra-club-endorses-prop-1a.html

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sierra Club Endorses Prop 1A

It's now official - the Sierra Club of California has voted to endorse Proposition 1A. We all knew that high speed rail would provide a major boost to California's efforts to produce environmentally friendly, sustainable, and global warming-fighting policies, and the Sierra Club's endorsement will help communicate that clearly to voters. From their Yes on 1A statement (.doc file) authored by Stuart Cohen of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition:

Sierra Club supports Proposition 1A, which would provide $9.95 billion dollars to catalyze the development of the 800 mile High-Speed Rail (HSR) system, and to make improvements to existing rail networks. Building HSR in California will reinforce our cities as the hubs of our economies, promote sustainable land use, significantly reduce global warming pollution, and get commuters off congested roads and out of crowded airports. While it is an extremely expensive project, adding the same capacity by expanding highways and airports would cost at least twice as much.

<snip>

[bemildred]

11. That's good enough for me. nt

[LaPera]

15. YES!

[LaPera]

16. Yes!

[thatsrightimirish]

17. yes

it will be convenient for college students especially

[CalGator]

18. I voted no

But mainly because I want to waste money on a high speed train to Vegas some day instead. :evilgrin:

[Frances]

19. I'll vote yes after reading all the posts

Thanks for starting this thread

[Joe Bacon]

20. NO vote here

I'm in Los Angeles. Time after time, the Metro (Los Angeles Public Transit) goes to the ballot and asks for tax increases for projects they never do.

They also leave big chunks of the city (The valley, westisde) completely out when they come up with new "projects"

That's why I'm voting NO on 1A and No on R as well

[grantcart]

22. I voted no and I like big technology projects

this one is based on the premise that the federal government is going to match - we all know that is now dead


it also has a strange route south of LA going east and then south to Escondido


The projection on ridership seemed way too high.


If it is a good proposal it wasn't explained very well.

[Nailzberg]

21. I voted No

I'm just about always a No vote on props. Not my job to pass laws.

I don't have the time to read and understand these things. Sure, they have that summary of both sides in the voter's guide, but the reason I elect legislators in the first place is to have a better understanding and knowledge of these issues than I do. They have committees. They get environmental impact studies, fiscal reports, expert testimony. I get three sentences in my voters guide.

Do I favor high-speed rail? Sure do. Do I know enough about this prop? I don't feel I do. And that's my take on most props, not just this one.

[stripes5090]

23. YES.

YES on 1A. We've neglected our state infrastructure for too long. High speed rail will be a step forward for California. It will reduce the environmental impact of in-state travel and reduce congestion on our already over-crowded freeways. This is an example of the kind of big projects we need to do more of, if we want to be able to grow as a state without being strangled by outdated and inefficient methods of transportation.

[Dem2theMax]

25. No. Rumor has it that it will be going right past my house.

I live in a rural area and we are trying to keep it that way.

[padia]

26. I voted NO

could not go for the bond & living here in Fresno we do not get a leg of the system. Plus the Bay area already has BART.

[RexDart]

34. There will be a station in Fresno.

So you will have a leg.

[padia]

35. My understanding of what I read

is that the main leg LA-SF will go through the valley but that could be the California Aqueduct route an hour west of Fresno where there is more cotton than people. Plus if the Stockton or Sacramento to Merced is one of the legs that might be built afterwards which does follow the 99 corridor, that Fresno sits on, how is Fresno going to have a leg if an after thought might be an hour north. If Fresno has a stop why would they need to build a leg from the Delta to just an hour north? Though it is to late for my vote I can stop talking badly about the measure if I am enlightened. Fresno is the 6th largest city & county in the state any plan that does not consider it as at least a second tier project seems to be a bit remiss IMO.

[RexDart]

36. Best I can do is to point you to the offical website.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

Every plan I've seen shows a 99 routing. The reason for the Merced/Sac branch is that after coming north through Fresno the main line hooks left to hit Gilroy and the bay area.

My main gripe with it is that all the concept art shows blue/yellow trains. They really need to be in some form of the old Daylight colors. Yeah, I'm a geek.

[padia]

40. thanks

actually the animations are pretty cool. sounds from some of the other post that the funding may be questionable. but it is good to see the routes laid out the way they are.

[ourbluenation]

27. yes, yes, yes, and yes. n/t

[xxqqqzme]

28. I'm voting yes

even though I usually oppose bonds. I attended a NARP forum (National Rail Passengers Assoc.) a couple of years ago. This was the feature of the forum. This high speed train is part of a public rail system for the entire state. The idea is there are feeder rails into San Francisco & LA. The feeder rails allow you connections to other parts of the state. According to the map/grid this high speed train would be part of the high speed train to Vegas.

[Mz Pip]

29. No

zI pretty much vote no on any proposition that will cost the state more money. All this stuff sounds great, but paying for it is a big problem. So until California gets its act together moneywise, I'll probably be doing a lot of voting "no".

[bananas]

30. "Pete Rates the Propositions": Yes on 1A

Pete Stahl is known for making the propositions easy to understand,
even if you don't agree with his yes/no decision.

http://www.peterates.com/props-1108.shtml

"Sensible opinions on the California ballot propositions since 1980 by Pete Stahl"

Proposition 1A: High-Speed Rail Bonds ($10 billion) – YES

(Please see My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds for my opinion on bonds in general.)

<snip>

[Oerdin]

31. I'm voting for it.

We need both local and regional mass transit and a bullet train is a good way to start plus it will help provide a good way for people to travel in this state without using a car.

[Oerdin]

33. From the Pete Rates website.

Proposition 1A: High-Speed Rail Bonds ($10 billion) – YES

(Please see My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds for my opinion on bonds in general.)

Wheeeeee!

Would you like to zip across California at 220 MPH? To tunnel through mountains and glide through cities? To embark and arrive at futuristic stations straight out of The Jetsons? Of course you would!

The California High-Speed Rail Project hopes to link northern and southern California with sleek, clean-running, super-fast passenger trains. The first terminals will be in Los Angeles and San Francisco, with eventual lines to San Diego, Irvine and Sacramento. The electricity that powers the trains will come from windmills and other renewable, non-polluting sources. Judging by the fabulous animations on the Rail Authority's site, the stations will be breathtaking transit cathedrals with high-arched Plexiglas canopies.

The estimated cost for the LA-to-SF line is $32 billion. Prop 1A will provide $9 billion in bond money to get the project started. Washington is expected to add $7 billion (an 80% match), and public-private partnerships may kick in as much as $7 billion.

Uh oh. That adds up to only $23 billion. Where's the rest of the funding?

Okay, let's concede the point up front: Prop 1A will get us only part of the way there. In all but the most unlikely scenarios, voters will have to pass another large bond measure in a few years in order for the promised SF-to-LA line to become a reality.

It kills me that no one seems willing to admit this. Even with the addition of federal and private funds, this proposition cannot possibly build the promised high-speed rail system. We will all feel horribly manipulated in a few years when, after massive construction has started, we must vote again for more bond money. I am livid at the proponents for what is either a denial of reality or a bald-faced deceit.

But my regular readers will remember that you should never oppose a measure because of what it doesn't do. So let's examine what Prop 1A can do.

Realistically, here's what I see happening if Prop 1A passes. The federal government will kick in $7 billion, but the credit crunch will make it impossible for public-private partnerships to raise more than a couple billion. With just $18 billion available, the project will be scaled back to the highest mile-per-dollar segments, meaning rural areas where rights-of-way are cheaper and fewer grade separations are needed. So the first segment will link, say, Palmdale in the south to Gilroy in the north. When that's completed, around 2016, you'll be able to travel the 300-mile leg in ninety minutes. Metrolink and CalTrain will provide express service from the high-speed terminals to LA and SF, thanks in part to the $950 million in Prop 1A that's dedicated to existing commuter rail lines. So the total trip from LA to SF could take as little as four hours. Power for the trains may need to come from conventional generators instead of wind at first, and stations may be rather plain.

At that point, I predict it will become obvious that this is real, and that it makes sense to spend the billions to extend high-speed rail into major cities. Further bond measures will pass easily, and by 2024 we could indeed be shooting from San Jose to Burbank in two hours.

Two things make me think it will be clear that high-speed rail is worth all that money. First, this type of system has been a huge success in Europe, particularly in Spain, where the terrain and population density are quite similar to California's. Their high-speed rail system began in the mid-1990s with a 300-mile line from Madrid to Seville. Reliability is so high that the system refunds riders' fares if trains are even six minutes late. The recently opened Madrid-to-Barcelona line is so popular that it has already taken 30% of the travel market away from the airlines.

Second, people will start to consider what will happen if we don't build a high-speed rail system over the coming decades. California's population will continue to grow, of course, so travel between north and south will only increase. Without high-speed rail, there will be more congestion, more pollution, more frustration, and more traffic accidents. We'll be trying to get by in the 21st century with 20th-century tools. It will be like trying to survive in the 20th century with horse-and-buggy technology.

California is one of the world's leading economies. Our competitors around the globe, from Japan and China to France and Spain, have developed high-speed rail. Should we join them, or should we pretend that our highway system will be adequate in the mid-21st century? Yes, the required investment is huge, but that's what it will take to keep California thriving.

[miyazaki]

39. nope.

[bananas]

38. "San Diego City Beat" magazine: yes on 1a

They have several paragraphs on each ballot item, including local elections.
I'm glad to see they endorse 1a.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/our_endorsements/7404/

<snip>

Prop. 1A

We would like nothing more than climb aboard a bullet train and shoot up to San Francisco right now. Damn, we love that city. We can taste the food in Chinatown and North Beach just by thinking about it. Yum! That’s one reason the plan for high-speed rail is so appealing—not to mention the obvious environmental benefits and the long-term economic-productivity gains we believe would result.

Prop. 1A would authorize the sale of nearly $10 billion in general obligation bonds to finance part of the construction of the first and largest leg of the system—Anaheim to San Francisco, which is scheduled to be completed by roughly 2018. (Hurry! We’re not getting any younger!)

The key word in that sentence is “part.” The first phase is expected to cost more than three times as much as this initiative will generate. The plan is to get federal matching funds, and the hope is to get some private financing as well, but none of that is anywhere close to a done deal. Expect the state to come back seeking more billions from us.

Here’s the thing, though: As we understand it, there are safeguards in this initiative that make sure financing is in place before any bonds are issued for construction. It’s a bit of a gamble, because the global financial crisis makes things much less certain, and if financing can’t be found, a significant amount of money will be wasted on administrative costs—the L.A. Times estimates as much as $2 billion. We think it’s worth it. We want what many Europeans and Asians already enjoy. Vote yes on Prop. 1A.

<snip>

[Sirveri]

42. I'm split leaning no.

Investment in infastructure during an economic down turn is a good way to create jobs. That's the thing that causes the split.

I lean no because:
A) It's a BOND, and they aren't raising taxes to pay for it. So how exactly are we all suppossed to afford this when our budget is already woefully over stretched? I don't have a problem with bonds, I have a problem with not having a solution to pay for it.
B) While it's cool and fun to ride a train at 220mph, and the travel time is about double the flight while costing half as much. What's really the point? I go to LA rarely if ever, most folks I know only go for conventions or disneyland. During the New deal era the infastructure improvements were also meant to have a signifigant benefit. TVA caused some eco damage, but also provided a ton of cheap hydro energy. I don't see the same huge benefit comming from HSR, other than a few solar and wind plants scattered to help supply the line with its electrical needs.
C) It's not enough money, this thing needs something like 40B to complete at a minimum estimate, we could take the 10B and spend it to build a massive solar thermal array out in the middle of the desert that would massively solve a large ammount of our energy and air pollution problems. Instead we're spending it on a HSR project that we don't know if we'll have the funding to finish.

Over all, the ONLY thing they would have to do to win me over, is to raise taxes to cover the bond. That's it. Our state is not allowed to deficeit spend, so we either raise taxes or we cut spending. I guess you could call me a tax and spend liberal. But I still believe in fiscal responsibility, and I don't want my signature on yet another credit card expenditure.

[AndyTiedye]

43. YES! We Need High-Speed Rail!