On November 4^th, 2008, registered voters across California will have a chance to decide many important issues regarding the future of their beloved state, and one of the most important propositions, which coincidentally happens to be one of the most expensive, is regarding the very safety, livelihood, and continued existence of California’s citizens: a proposal to create a high-speed railway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. To vote against Proposition 1A is tantamount to environmental homicide, as well as a binding contract to slowly stop breathing. Why? Because the central issue of this proposition is not singular in nature, but in fact twofold: traffic congestion and pollution (Prop 1A).

Proposition 1A would create a high-speed railway from the Transbay Terminal of Downtown San Francisco to Union Station in Los Angeles, clocking in at a quick two and a half hours for a one-way ride at 220mph, with a handful of stops along the way for convenient trans-California commuting. The High Speed Rail Authority, created to manage this project full-circle, from conception and surveys to completion and operation, is requesting close to $33b to complete this project, which would be paid for in roughly equal thirds: state taxpayers, the federal government, and private investors. While this number may sound large and slightly scary to the Average Joe the Plumber, not all of the funding will go towards construction: a large part will be necessary for the planning and design stages, due to California’s propensity for multi-stage tectonic movement, as well as connecting pre-existing public transportation services such as San Francisco’s BART or the Altamont Commuter Express to this new and modern method of travel. Admittedly California’s largest public works project in the history of both the United States of America and Union of old, this project is not just another attempt at a hopefully-well-used public transportation system (Cabanatuan), but an obvious move of offensive nature to combat the growing problems that the Sunshine State faces.

As anyone who has driven a moving vehicle of any sort in California will know, traffic is a major issue at almost any time of the day, and will only continue to get worse as the state’s population is projected to reach 50m citizens by 2030 (Cabanatuan). Not only does the vehicular traffic of the state, and the nation at large, continue to grow, but the use of current and pre-existing railways is problematic at best, not giving frustrated drivers viable alternatives. Concerns of using services like Amtrak, Altamont Commuter Express, or the ill-fated attempt at an East Coast high-speed railway known as Acela, range from pedestrian to mechanical, but are mostly regarding the inconvenience and extra time necessary to use such transportation, in addition to the questionable safety record of these aging government subsidies (Miller). Foreign countries are able to navigate the perils of a reliable and fast national railway system, so why should America not have its first?

The reasons for voting “Yes” on Proposition 1A are immediately obvious, and detractors have difficulty in arguing against them: with high usage of such a proposed railway system, vehicular traffic will decrease, which, in turn, results in fewer daily emissions and pollution, while also reducing the cost of travel for many workaday citizens (Cabanatuan). Additionally, the proposal from the High Speed Rail Authority is to run the railway by electricity via magnetic levitation - known as “maglev” - , rather than the predecessors of coal or steam, much like many of the modern European transit circuits; once again, this results in less emissions, since the train has none, which puts the final nail in the coffin for this proposal being a “win-win situation” in regards to the environment and Global Warming (Grossman).

However, the minds of the grumbling minority have managed to find issues to complain about, largely revolving around the proposed and actual costs of this project. In order to repay the State’s debt from this beautiful attempt at progress, the opponents of Proposition 1A claim the cost will total at almost $20b, taking thirty years to reach a zero balance. Additionally, they reference other herculean public works projects, such as Boston’s “Big Dig”, and the unfortunate reality that they tend to go considerably over budget (Cabanatuan). Despite being part of the pessimistic fiscal conservatives, these groups and individuals, which includes California’s Chamber of Commerce, do give voice to legitimate concerns.

But should the State’s, or concerned individuals’, fears about the thinning of their wallets be a reason to not finance such a revolutionary and forward-thinking proposal? Should cost be allowed to be the deciding factor in a battle of ideals and morality? Gargantuan efforts such as NASA or the secretly-ran Manhattan Project used considerable amounts of capital, and in the case of NASA, still does, in order to achieve their goals. The cost was not a deciding factor in the discussions to proceed, because the end goal was deemed to be too important. Granted, this project is of state origin, and not entirely federally funded, but such logic and reason should be applied to Proposition 1A regardless of its point of origin because, in the end, it is not effecting just traffic and the stress-free well being of California’s citizens, but the environment as well.

Historically, California has paved the way for other states to enact large changes in their governmental thinking or operational processes, such as the state mandated emission levels for corporations, movements toward green energy production for the general population, and, as is hotly contested in this voting cycle, the legal marriage of same-sex couples. The issue of a greener and more efficient method of transportation for the citizens of America could be just the latest in the line of born-and-bred Californian innovations, creating change that sweeps America off its feet. If the federal government is not going to personally create a national railway system that is up to the standards of today’s time, emissions, and efficiency standards, not to mention safety, then it is the responsibility of the people, and by association, the state, to accomplish what our illustrious Congress cannot. A vote of “Yes” on Proposition 1A is not only a vote for change, it’s a vote for a future America. But most of all, it’s a vote to continue breathing.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Works Cited

Cabanatuan, Michael. “High-speed rail plan a key ballot measure.” SF Gate [San Francisco] 11 Sept. 2008, sec. A-1. SFGate.com. 11 Sept. 2008. SF Gate. 28 Oct. 2008 <http://www.sfgate.com/‌cgi-bin/‌article.cgi?f=/‌c/‌a/‌2008/‌09/‌11/‌MN6812P3E1.DTL>.

Grossman, David. “The case for high speed rail in America.” USA Today 22 Aug. 2008, Travel sec. USAToday.com. 22 Aug. 2008. USA Today. 30 Oct. 2008 <http://www.usatoday.com/‌travel/‌columnist/‌grossman/‌2008-08-22-high-speed-rail_N.htm>.

Miller, Jeremy. “AMTRAK, Off Track.” Triplepoint 2005. Triplepoint. Boston University. 28 Oct. 2008 <http://www.bu.edu/‌sjmag/‌scimag2005/‌opinion/‌amtrak.htm>.

Prop 1A - High-Speed Train System Will Provide A Needed Boost & Jobs For California’s Economy. Sacramento: California Alliance to Rebuild California, Local 3 Operating Engineers Union, 2008. Californians for High-Speed Trains. 2008. A Coalition of Taxpayer, Business, Environmental and Labor Groups And People from Across California Tired of Being Stuck in Traffic. 28 Oct. 2008 <http://www.californiahighspeedtrains.com/‌docs/‌Multipage%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf>.