One more Prop. 1A question
By John Horgan
Saturday, October 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm in Uncategorized.
By now, it is likely that you have spent at least a bit of time familiarizing yourself with some of the pros and cons of Proposition 1A, the proposed $10 billion bond measure on the Nov. 4 election ballot. It is no secret that the grandiose plan for a high-speed rail setup linking San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco _ and certain points in between _ has its detractors. And the list is growing as the economy falls deeper into recession. California’s fiscal problems are bad and getting hairier. The timing of Prop. 1A could not be worse. But there’s more. San Mateo County, as we have noted recently, will be severely impacted by the planned system in ways even its proponents can’t describe with any real accuracy. There are lots of unanswered questions for those living on the Peninsula. And how about this one: Why would anyone seriously contemplate implementing not one, not two but three separate rail lines stretching from Millbrae to San Francisco? That’s right, three: BART, Caltrain and the new high-speed arrangement. A minimum of six tracks, plus a special set to San Francisco International Airport. Can you say utterly redundant and a waste of taxpayers’ money? Amazing.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
October 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
It is already a given in Washington that an Obama-Pelosi-Reed government would give America’s struggling traditional air carriers their own bailout. The worst-case scenario along those lines would be full-blown re-regulation that cripples or even halts short-haul discount air service that doesn’t fit into their salary structure as being unfriendly to the environment.
A combination of airline re-regulation and a mandatory 55 mph speed limit is the only scenario I can imagine that would make the high-speed system envisaged by Prop 1A consistently profitable… it would require taking away the other options people have now.
There is a perfectly good corridor for the state and businesses to experiment with high-speed rail: Los Angeles to Las Vegas. There is heavy traffic every weekend and least some traffic on weekdays all year round. If it works there, then the state could get businesses, not taxpayers, to take most of the risk in building a Prop 1A-style high-speed rail system.
Businesses would also strip away the bias built into the Prop 1A plan by Central Valley pols unhappy about the gap in discount air service at airports south of Sacramento and north of Ontario.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Very good points. Is anyone else talking about the notion of a Las Vegas to Los Angelese high-speed rail option as a starting point?