Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
As the election season approaches, I will be again posting my take on the different propositions on the ballot. As a disclaimer I am not much of a fan of the proposition process (and/or direct democracy) for a few reasons, including:
- We elect representatives to do the hard work of deliberating issues that are important to us. If we are going to be putting more and more propositions on the ballot, let’s save money by dissolving the state legislature.
- Let’s be honest that Ray Zalinski in Tommy Boy was right: “What the American public doesn’t know is what makes them the American public.” We are not as educated as we should be. Yet we are asked to make important decisions that will affect millions of people’s lives!
- Many propositions end up in and thrown out by the courts. (Imagine how we could have spent those wasted dollars)
- It cheapens the democracy process. That’s right, it doesn’t strengthen democracy, but weakens it. This is the basic process of ballot measures: A few wealthy people buy names (signatures) to put a proposition on a ballot and then they spends more money to sell it to you the voter.
I’m voting NO on Proposition 1A. I like the idea of a high speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. In fact, it would benefit me since we make the drive up north often.
However, I am not a fan of bonds (except in rare cases). As a rule of thumb, bonds will cost at least twice of what we get in return because of interest. I find that bonds are inefficient and irresponsible ways to fund public improvements.
Here are the reasons why I am voting NO on Proposition 1A (and would urge you to do the same):
- The State can barely balance our budget. It took them nearly three months after the deadline to come up with a state budget. I don’t trust our state government to oversee a $9 billion bond.
- Even if this is a great idea, we are not in the right economic season to be funding it.
- High speed rail is a luxury. We already have adequate alternatives to connecting the major California cities, including rail.
- I doubt the program will pay for itself once implemented. The clientele that would benefit/use such a system will not be able to fund the system.
- Honestly: We Californians (especially us in LA) love our cars. We need to first learn to use alternative transportation using what we already have before we graduate to high speed rail.
- If you really want high speed rail, close your eyes and imagine this scenario: What if you were taxed a little more to fund a high speed rail system. Would you do it? Would you be willing to have less disposable income for this luxury?
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
I agree with your dislike of propositions. I’d add that as pieces of legislation, they’re much too strong. Only another proposition, a court ruling, or a super majority in the legislature can overturn or change them. Because so many are about funding projects, they tie up discretionary spending, which, I think only exacerbates our state’s inability to pass a timely budget. Also, they’re beyond the usual legislative process in which bills are written and negotiated.
This site has some good objections to the proposition process:
http://www.healthvote.org/inde.....initiative
I’m going to have to disagree with you on the high speed rail. Using Taiwan as an example, building a high speed rail that links the north to the south has completely changed people’s lifestyles and has stimulated the economy in regions that the train goes through. Due to the creative pricing, it it not considered a luxury because it is more expensive to fly and drive (given the increase in gas prices). Also, it seems like it has been a blessing to elderly folks who want to visit their kids and don’t have the means to drive.
I do agree with you however that the train fares may not pay for the cost of building, operating, and maintaing but given the benefits of creating new jobs, stimulating local economy, stimulating tourism…I think it might be worth the price. A lot of people complain that they don’t take public transportation because it’s faster to drive. With the high speed rail, that is no longer an excuse.
I do work in public transportation and know the process of EIRs, public hearings, etc. I’m not denying that it won’t be A LONG, EXPENSIVE process but if we don’t build it, how will they come?
For a detailed, devastating debunking of this incredible HSR boondoggle — a.k.a. Prop 1A — go to the 196 page study of this issue just released in September, 2008 by the Reason Foundation:
http://www.reason.org/ps370/
Fortunately at this same web page you’ll find a readable summation of the study.
If that’s not enough, go to
http://www.ti.org/antiplanner/?p=515
which summarizes the reasons why high speed rail makes no sense. There are many related articles on this website.
There are so many, MANY reasons to vote down this insane measure. The fact that California is flat broke from current profligate spending and borrowing is only the latest additional reason to vote down Prop 1A.
reason.org has most of its facts wrong. All highspeed rail system in the world are self financing. Even in Spain, where they built a highspeed rail from Madrid to Barcelona, have found that many people have left their cars and are taking the train. Further the convenience and safety of the train have many leaving behind planes. California is surprisingly similar to Spain in terms of population and area. They have a little more area and people. Our economy though is richer. In France the highspeed rail actually pays for some of the other rail systems. The proposed system already has European bidders. Most see this as a real money maker. The bonds themselves would not be issues and paid for for the next few years. Bidding and contracts have to be issued first. This will be a multi-year project.
Kyle wants us to believe that California’s HSR boondoggle is seen by European bidders as “a real money maker.” Uh huh.
Well, in a sense they are right. If one SELLS California the trains, or perhaps builds them for CA, then it is indeed a real money maker — for the vendors. NOT for the folks getting the bill — and the shaft. You and me.
Is anyone stopping such Pollyannish “bidders” from building the California bullet train and keeping all the profits for themselves? Nope.
Talk is cheap. Putting money on the line — one’s OWN money — is something entirely different.
And the pronounced lack of action by “European bidders” speaks far louder than Kyle’s empty cheerleader rhetoric.
I don’t know where Kyle gets his info that “All highspeed rail system [sic] in the world are self financing.” Certainly not according to the following article:
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=507
High-Speed Rail Part 2: Europe
posted in Planning Disasters, Transportation |
Many Americans who visit Europe return gushing over the high-speed rail lines. If only our country had the foresight to build such wonderful trains! It is too bad that America is being left behind the high-speed rail revolution.
Fast, frequent rail service may be a boon to tourists. But it does not play a significant role in overall European travel. Eurostat’s Panorama of Transport says that, as of 2004, rails in the 25-member European Union carried just 5.8% of passenger travel — down from 6.2% in 2000 — while automobiles (including motorcycles) carried 76.0%, up from 75.5% in 2000 (see p. 102).
Italy was the first European country to start high-speed train service, with a 160-mile-per-hour train between Rome and Florence in 1978. France’s TGV began service in 1981. Today, high-speed trains run on more than 3,000 miles of track in Europe. France is the leader: its trains carry 54 percent of Europe’s high-speed rail riders, followed by Germany at 26 percent and Italy at 10 percent. Spain, the U.K., and other countries are all below 5 percent.
At the same time, page 106 of the Panorama of Transport says rail carries only 8.6% of passenger travel in France, with 85% going by car. German rails have 7.1% of the market, with 85% by car; Dutch rails are 8.1%, 84% car; U.K. is 5.5% rail, 87% car, and so forth. Even in Eastern Europe, with the exception of Hungary (where rails have 13% of the market), rails carry only 6 to 8 percent of travel. (These numbers don’t count air travel; adding that reduces rail’s shares even further.)
Regulations set by the European Union are supposed to prevent member states from gaining an unfair advantage over other members by subsidizing their transport networks. Yet most of the capital costs of high-speed rail has been covered by government subsidies, sometimes (as in Japan) in the form of “loans” to the state-owned rail companies that will probably never be repaid.
“Rail is heavily subsidized,” says French economist Rémy Prud’Homme. “Users pay about half the total cost of providing the service.” Prud’Homme estimates that European Union nations give at least 68 billion euros in annual subsidies to their rail systems.
Despite the speed of the trains, the extent of the subsidies, and the punitive taxes on driving, high-speed rail has not reduced highway congestion. “Not a single high-speed track built to date has had any perceptible impact on the road traffic carried by parallel motorways,” says Aria Vatanen, a member of the European Parliament.
The introduction of subsidized high-speed rail has caused some airlines to end service paralleling rail routes. Before France opened high-speed rail service between Paris and Marseille in 2001, nearly four times as many people flew this route as took the train. Today, trains carry more than two people for every person flying, and at least one airline has abandoned the route. Airlines have completely abandoned Paris-Brussels service, and at least one airline has left the Paris-London market, since high-speed rail service began between those cities.
Japan’s high-speed trains operate on a different track gauge (the distance between the rails) than its low-speed trains. This means the two networks never interconnect. Europe countries use the same gauge for both of their networks. In major cities like Paris, the two systems are separate. But in the hinterlands, the high-speed trains often operate at conventional speeds on tracks shared with other passenger and freight trains.
For example, TGV trains can be seen throughout France and into several bordering nations. But they only operate at high speeds between Paris and a few other major cities including Marseille, Le Mans, St. Pierre Des Corps, London, and Brussels.
As in Japan, the emphasis on passenger trains has meant a de-emphasis on freight trains. In 2004, rails carried just 16.5% of freight (compared with 37% in the U.S.), while highways carried 72.5 percent (compared with 28.7 percent in the U.S.). As in Japan, rail’s share of European freight is shrinking, while in the U.S. it is growing.
Billions in subsidies, dwindling market share, successful only in putting formerly profitable competitors out of business. These are hardly the hallmarks of a program worth envying or emulating.
Richard, I have worked on rail transportation systems and they provide more passenger miles per $ than road or air. Your heavily subsidized trains in france are not the TGVs. The high speed net work pays for itself. Further, you don’t seem to mind the subsidization of cars. CalTran just finished on overpass in my area to the tune of 300 million. One small overpass. Maintaince, development, and expansion of road far exceed the cost per mile than train. We have to move people some way as the population expands. Rail expansion also does not necessarily mean less freight. I dare say you can’t compare Japan to any other country.
Your explanation on the Paris Marseille route in terms of reduced air travel proves my case. If you consider all the public and private cost of air vs the train, you will see that it is far cheaper. And the airlines can’t compete with the train. Also, air is cheaper than the car over the same distance. Hence if A is less than B and B less than C then A is less than C. I.e., train is cheaper than cars. QED.
Further, rail pollutes less, and is far more efficient. I’m surprised how reactionary the tax payers union is. If we have to move people, and we do, then lets do it in the most efficient way possible. Cars are the least efficient, and waste tax payers dollars to boot.