Proposition 1: 10 Billion Dollars in Bonds for High Speed Rail?

I'd meant to post some measured and weighty commentary here on each of California's twelve ballot propositions, but a busy working schedule has gotten the best of me.  I'm afraid my blog reasoning about how to vote will have to be severely elided.  Still, I'm going to try to give it a shot 

First off, here's a decent summary of proposition 1 on Ballotpedia.

Prop. 1 asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The train would run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system. Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.

I'm naturally inclined to support any kind of governmental support for expanded rail service: My dad's a long-tenured employee of Amtrak, and I've been enjoying intercity rail travel my entire life.  Beyond the personal connection, who wouldn't want to skip the airports and travel from downtown LA to downtown SFO in three hours -- skipping the airports entirely and enjoying the roomy comfort of a modern railroad car?   

Opponents of prop 1 don't argue that high speed rail is a bad idea, rather they make a three-pronged case against the measure based on conservation, prioritization and skepticism.  Here are the three rebuttal points: First, parks and open spaces would be threatened by rail beds.  Next, California's priority rail transportation project should be building out infrastructure for metropolitan-area commuters to alleviate regional traffic congestion. Third, with America's lousy track record of getting fleeced by European rail contractors, whose to say 10 billion will be the final bill?      

All three are valid arguments, but I'll still be voting yes on #1. 

California's a big state: surely a rail line can be built with minimal environmental damage...  And we should be moving forward on BOTH high speed rail and intra-city transportation projects.  Finally, while budget overruns will probably be inevitable, I feel this project still justifies the added cost. 

Comments

[Peter Richardson]

I haven't researched it carefully, but I'm with you on this one. Aside from the environmental benefits of high-speed rail compared to driving and flying, there's also the logistics and convenience. Flying from San Francisco to Los Angeles is barely faster than driving when everything is said and done. Even better if we don't have to take off our belts and shoes, remove our laptops, forfeit our forgotten penknives/nail clippers, and do the hokey pokey.

[godoggo]

One other point: the fact that States are supposed (in principal) to balance their economy means that they spend a lot in good times and cut back in bad. This is the opposite of what they do, and it is not what's done at the federal level, but it lessens the impact of good federal policy (Matt Yglesias has written about this a lot). Aside from the specific strength of the train, generally speaking this sort of building project is what we should be doing now. It will create jobs directly and pump badly needed $$$ into the economy.

[godoggo]

sorry: "opposite of what they should do"