Welcome back to another installment of "Better Know the Ballot." In case you missed my first one, Better Know the Ballot is a series in which I take a look at some of the issues on the ballot in the upcoming November election.
I'm a resident of San Francisco, CA, so my analysis will probably focus on issues in CA or even more locally to me, but if you want me to do a writeup on any ballots elsewhere, and you have some links, I'll try to cover it. I already have had a couple requests queued up.
Anyway, onto CA Proposition 1A!
Proposition 1A is known as SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.
Summary
* Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices.
* Reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports.
* Reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
* Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases.
* Establishes a clean, efficient 220 MPH transportation system.
* Improves existing passenger rail lines serving the state’s major population centers.
* Provides for California’s growing population.
* Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
* Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds.
* Requires that use of all bond funds is subject to independent audits.
* Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay bond principal and interest.
Fiscal Impact
* State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year.
* When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system. The costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.
Background
Urban, Commuter, and Intercity Rail. California is served by various types of passenger rail services that include urban, commuter, and intercity rail services. Urban and commuter rail services primarily serve local and regional transportation needs. Examples include services provided by Bay Area Rapid Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento Regional Transit light rail, Metrolink in Southern California, and the San Diego Trolley. These services are generally planned by local or regional governments and are funded with a combination of local, state, and federal monies.
Intercity rail services primarily serve business or recreational travelers over longer distances between cities as well as between regions in California and other parts of the country. Currently, the state funds and contracts with Amtrak to provide intercity rail service, with trains that travel at maximum speeds of up to about 90 miles per hour. There are intercity rail services in three corridors: the Capitol Corridor service from San Jose to Auburn, the San Joaquin service from Oakland to Bakersfield, and the Pacific Surfliner service from San Diego to San Luis Obispo. None of the existing state-funded intercity rail services provide train service between northern California and southern California.
High-Speed Train System. Currently, California does not have a high-speed intercity passenger train system that provides service at sustained speeds of 200 miles per hour or greater. In 1996, the state created the California High-Speed Rail Authority (the authority) to develop an intercity train system that can operate at speeds of 200 miles per hour or faster to connect the major metropolitan areas of California, and provide service between northern California and southern California.
Over the past 12 years, the authority has spent about $60 million for pre-construction activities, such as environmental studies and planning, related to the development of a high-speed train system. The proposed system would use electric trains and connect the major metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Sacramento, through the Central Valley, into Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties), and San Diego. The authority estimated in 2006 that the total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion. While the authority plans to fund the construction of the proposed system with a combination of federal, private, local, and state monies, no funding has yet been provided.
Vote Summaries
YES
A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, to plan and to partially fund the construction of a high-speed train system in California, and to make capital improvements to state and local rail services.
NO
A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for these purposes.
Argument Summaries
PRO
California’s transportation system is broken: skyrocketing gasoline prices and gridlocked freeways and airports. High-speed trains are the new transportation option that reduces greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil. High-speed trains are cheaper than building new highways and airports to meet population growth and require NO NEW TAXES.
CON
Prop. 1A is a huge boondoggle. Taxpayers pay at least $640,000,000 per year in costs for a government run railroad. There’s no guarantee it will ever get built. Expand existing transportation systems instead to cut commutes and save fuel. No on 1A: an open taxpayer checkbook with virtually no accountability.
For full arguments in favor and opposed to this proposition, visit http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/....
Personal Analysis
Right now, to get between Northern California and Southern California, you have two viable options. One is to hop in a car and take I-5 for more than 300 miles, which ends up being a five or six hour drive. A lot of people make this drive (typically roundtrip) for a variety of reasons. This of course results in a great deal of green-house gas emissions. More practically speaking, it costs a whole lot of gas money these days (on average, more than $80), and it takes a very long time.
The other option is to get on a plane and take an hour-long flight between the two areas. This is typically also pretty costly, especially if it's a rather spontaneous trip (a spur-of-the-moment roundtrip flight I had to make for business between San Francisco and LAX ended up costing me more than $500). Again, this contributes to greenhouse gases. Again, more practically, flying really sucks these days. Between the TSA, and airlines charging fees for any luggage, and all the other headaches, I'm typically loathe to make the flight.
The hi-speed rail addresses these concerns perfectly. It's more environmentally sound, as the electric powered trains use 1/5th the energy of auto travel and 1/3rd the energy of air travel. It would have the effect of removing 12 billion pounds of CO2 emissions, which is about the equivalent of one million cars. Why would people switch? Well, a trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco would take around 2.5 hours and cost a mere $50. This is cheaper than air travel, and with the pains of flying these days, ends up taking about the same time as flying.
Further, I believe a hi-speed rail system would act as a nationwide model for efficient, hi-speed rail transportation that could serve to move a lot of people quickly and with far less damage to the environment. Air travel will always be preferred for long distances, but for distances less than six or seven hundred miles, hi-speed rail is a good alternative, as the California hi-speed rail would prove.
Personal Endorsement
Vote YES on Proposition 1A.
I hope you've enjoyed the second "Better Know the Ballot." If you have any suggestions or comments, please leave them below!