Passenger Trains > CA $9.95 billion rail bond moved to 11/06 election

Governor Schwarzenegger has signed SB 1169 (Murray) into law, which moves the rail bond election from this November to November 2006.

The bond measure includes $9 billion for HSR along with $950 million for conventional rail and rail transit improvements, and would require majority approval by voters to pass.

Many observers feel the 2-year delay is reasonable considering the preoccupation of negative fiscal news at the moment and the nonaction by Congress so far on any meaningful matching funds for HSR.

The CA Legislature, and the new Governor, could have taken the opportunity to cancel the rail bonds entirely. But in the end, the rail bonds proved to have substantial resilience and support. That's a good thing.

Sounds good.. but also, where is the airline lobby on this? I'm sure the folks from Southwest Airlines just can't wait to pour big money into downing this measure when it hits the ballot. Southwest helped to kill a similar High-Speed Rail bond measure in their home state of TX a few years ago now.

Cheers,
Harry

Even in 06, I don't see it happening!

The airline industry, particularly Southwest, has been more silent than anticipated on this issue. The traditional big carriers have little to fear from it, as they are not big players in the intra-California market, and could gain from the improved access to airports (like SFO) from outlying communities that HSR would provide.

Nobody's saying that this is a sure thing, but in the words of Ronald Reagan, perhaps the best days are ahead. It certainly beats the negativity of saying "no chance". After all, the same thing happened in 1990, when those who circulated the Prop. 116 rail bond measure were told in no uncertain terms by many, including many professionals in the transportation and public agency fields, that something like that would never pass. But pass it did.

Because theProp. 116 circulators did not listen to the sage advice, today we have Metrolink, CA cars, a Capitol Corridor, and even more importantly, a culture at the political level that accepts rail as a part of what we should have as part of CA's infrastructure.

In many ways (even though there is a long way to go) THAT is the most significant accomplishment of all. And it helps explain why the HSR bond measure made it on the ballot in 2002, and why today it was only delayed, rather than written off completely at a time when fiscal constraints and many other demands on government are extreme.

So, let's wait and see.

Does it start in Tijuana? We must reconnect Alta California with Baja California.

Reindeerflame,

Sounds good that the airline lobby is kicking back for now, but I'd wager to say that that the LA/SFO corridor is a VERY important revenue generator for Southwest Airlines, so if I were them, I'd not walk away from a huge chunk of revenue.

Don't get me wrong.. I'm hoping for HSR in CA too, and I too am impressed at the support that it seems to be getting from the general populace even in these troubled times. I just hope that the routes will make sense once all the approvals and $$ is ironed out, God willing..

Cheers,
Harry

Wait a minute!! Southwest does NOT fly into SFO!!

Maybe by the time I have grandchildren California will have high speed rail, but for now I'll enjoy what we've got here in the northeast! ;)

Another thing is that Schwarzenegger is from Austria, a country who's rail system is very freakin' good (both in reach and in quality of rolling stock).

stone23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait a minute!! Southwest does NOT fly into SFO!!

I was speaking in general terms.. Southwest flys into San Jose and Oakland, which is a part of the San Francisco Bay Area, much in the same manner that Burbank serves the LA area.

Unless some serious thought is given to a rational route--meaning Altamont Pass rather than the Diablo Range near Pacheco Pass, I cannot support the proposal and feel it is better to delay. The present plan is seriously flawed and serves the interests of developers better than people here already who need transportation alternatives. The initial system should serve ALL major metropolitan areas, from Sacramento, the entire Bay Area and all of S. Cal. This is the only way to gain the public support needed to build it.

Either route would be fine.

Virtually everything in the transportation field is developer-oriented. If it's not, that's largely because it's irrelevant, like a triweekly Sunset.

ANY HSR proposal by its very nature will have big impacts on development.

But development isn't stopping anytime soon, as long as there are the pressures from increasing population.