Politics: No on Prop 1A

This measure is a bond placed on the ballot by the California legislature to support the building of high-speed rail between northern and southern California.

The LA Times has come out in favor of the project. Excerpt:

There's something undeniably alluring about a bullet train -- the technology is so powerful, the speed so breathtaking, it makes quotidian trips seem exotic. Perhaps that's why proponents of Proposition 1a, which would authorize $9.95 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail line connecting Northern and Southern California, think it would be wildly successful. They predict the line could draw 117 million riders a year by 2030, compared with 3 million now taking the high-speed Amtrak train in the densely populated Boston-Washington corridor. And they say it will turn a billion-dollar profit by then even as it keeps ticket prices remarkably low.

As a technophile, I confess to seeing the allure of such a project.

However, the LA Times is honest enough to admit it might be pie-in-the-sky. Excerpt:

The projections by the measure's opponents, led by the libertarian Reason Foundation in Los Angeles, are much less sanguine and more persuasive. If voters approve Proposition 1a, it seems close to a lead-pipe cinch that the California High-Speed Rail Authority will ask for many billions more in the coming decades, and the Legislature will have to scrape up many millions of dollars in operating subsidies.

The Sacramento Bee has reluctantly come out against the proposition. Excerpt:

Since this proposition was placed on the ballot by lawmakers, it meets one of our tests. Yet until California fixes its chronic budget deficits, it can't afford to increase its debt for projects that, while desirable, are not of vital necessity. In addition, the rail system that supporters are touting may not be as high-speed as advertised. Potential conflicts with freight service lines could make trains slower than those found in Europe or Japan.

This is a tough call. The state needs clean alternatives to air travel and freeway travel, and the Central Valley needs the economic development that could result. But if it passed, this proposition would take $647 million annually from the general fund that, without a tax increase, would have to come from other services. That's money the state can't promise.

In better economic times, I'd vote yes. But under the current circumstances, I think we should hold off. I counsel a no vote on prop 1A.