California Proposition 1A

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:52 AM  by 
Jared Hanson

Safe Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act

Summary:

To provide Californians a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices; to provide good-paying jobs and improve California’s economy while reducing air pollution, global warming greenhouse gases, and our dependence on foreign oil, shall $9.95 billion in bonds be issued to establish a clean, efficient high-speed train service linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with at least 90 percent of bond funds spent for specific projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds, and all bond funds subject to independent audits? Fiscal Impact: State costs of $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay both principal and interest costs of the bonds. Payments would average about $647 million per year. When constructed, unknown operation and maintenance costs, probably over $1 billion annually; at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fares.

This is an extremely ambitious project, one that has been discussed for over a decade and had previous bond acts delayed four times. Opponents cite this ambition and high cost in their arguments, claiming the project to be boondoggle with no guarantee of completion. The cynic in me sees validity in their argument.

However, Arnold Schwarzenegger, our Republican governor, is a supporter of this proposition. Taking into account his strict, no-holds-barred approach when it comes to the state’s budget, and the fact that this proposition does not raise taxes, my financial concerns are eased.

Ultimately, I’m a proponent of alternative modes of transportation. California is forward-thinking state, and if this project can be completed successfully here, hopefully other states will follow. The benefits of increased energy independence and environmental sustainability are too important to ignore.

If and when the project is complete, it’ll be nice to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 1/2 hours. In the meantime, portions of the funds will be spent to improve existing passenger rail lines.

I’m voting Yes on Prop 1A.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Comments

Lonna Hanson
says:
October 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Makes sense to me. I like your position on this CA ballot issue.
Mom

morris brown
says:
October 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM

One of the main reasons to not support Prop 1A is the economics of the Project.

You say, the project will not raise taxes. The correct statement is “Prop 1A does not mandate a tax increase” — that is true.

The money raised is not free money. It will come from floating a bond measure which will cost $650 million each year to service the interest and debt, for 30 years. The $10 billion bond measure will cost the taxpayers of California almost $20 Billion in total costs.

Now you take $20 billion out of the General Fund, which gets its money from taxes, there are two consequences.

1. You cut some program or programs to make up the $650 million per year.

or

2. You raise taxes to collect this money.

So please don’t propagate the lie that Prop 1A won’t raise your taxes.

There are tons of other reasons why this Proposition must be defeated. Take a look at

http://www.derailhsr.com

Post a comment