Language amending a bill to delay Prop 1 from the November 2008 ballot until the November 2010 ballot was accepted on the Assembly Floor today. SB 298 will contain language that will be referred to the proper committees for consideration. I was the floor manager for the amendments, which received a 54-9 vote, with only Dems voting "no" and a bunch not voting, to send the proposal to committee. Delaying a $10 Billion rail bond vote during this fiscal mess makes sense to me. We’ll see what happens in the committee process as there isn’t much deadline time left to pull items off of the ballot that the legislature placed there.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I am mixed — if there is a better chance of the bonds boondoggle being voted down this year, maybe we should leave it where it is!
What a huge collosal mis-use of taxpayer dollars.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:00 am
We have a compelling need to diversify transportation. Our airports are all overcrowded and with the security in place after 9/11 catching a flight is taking so much time that it is hurting our overall economy.
Beyond that, none of our airports are willing to expand to handle the growing number of passengers who need to move and if we don’t develop alternatives, they will have to grow in spite of people’s wishes. Beyond that, many people are driving instead of flying because of the overcrowding at airports and our freeway system is breaking down because of too much traffic for what it is meant to handle. The high speed train will help cut down both air and car traffic, maybe even in a dramatic fashion, which is good for our environment and good for the residents of California.
The high speed rail will also help to move packages and goods from north to south. If a disaster like another 9/11 were to happen, it would give us another way to move needed materials from one place to another and make it easier for our economy to recover from such a disaster, so as a safety precaution I think it makes sense.
A high speed train could also be a root connected to local rapid transit hubs and business centers in communities along it’s route in a manner similar to what they have in both Europe and Japan where their high speed rail has been a tremendous success (and very profitable).
I can understand people who are concerned about using tax dollars for such a system and who would oppose it for that reason. However, I think you need a government partnership both because of the huge amounts involved and also because it is the only way to cut through the bureaucratic red tape that could get in the way. To me this project makes a lot more sense than many of the giveaways that have become law.
But that’s just my opinion and that’s why they have an election. People can vote against it if they want. But what the legislature is doing, is every single cycle they postpone the measure and don’t let the people have a say. The truth is that most don’t understand it (the vast majority of transportation professionals support it) and they have short term projects and political interests that in the term limits era they would rather thrown money at. As I said, I can understand a conservative opposing the project,(although I believe most conservative voters will support it on the ballot) but any liberal who opposes it is shortsighted to put it mildly. At least in my opinion
July 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I’d like to see money spent for actual light rail service. Why there is none down the I-15 corridor from Escondido to Mission Valley is a very good question. Instead, Caltrans enlarges (and I doubt, improves) the fast trak lanes.