Yes on Prop. 1A

Now more than ever state needs jobs, cleaner air, easier travel.

Published online on Friday, Oct. 17, 2008

A great deal is at stake with Proposition 1A, the high-speed rail bond on the November ballot. Jobs, cleaner air, reduced dependence on oil, a convenient and efficient alternative to driving and flying -- for all these reasons, a "yes" vote makes perfect sense for Californians.

Some of the opposition to the $9.95 billion bond comes from predictable sources -- groups backed by the oil industry, for instance. They seek to defend a status quo that is crumbling rapidly.

Sadly, much opposition has come from people who say they like the idea of 220-mph trains zipping up and down the state, but don't think we can afford it right now, in a time of budget disaster and economic crisis.

That sounds prudent, even reasonable, but it ignores an important fact of American history: Many of our most important public works projects have come in times of deep economic distress -- and they have been crucial elements in our recovery in those times.

Recall the Great Depression, when voters in the Bay Area passed bonds to build the Golden Gate and Bay bridges -- projects that lightened the impact of the Depression on that region and were critical to the postwar economic boom. Shasta Dam was built during the Depression, and remains a linchpin of the state's water system.

The greatest public works project in the nation's history -- the transcontinental railroad -- was set in motion by Abraham Lincoln at the outset of the Civil War, the most troubled period of our history.

The other gap in the reasoning of high-speed rail opponents is their nearly universal belief that we save money by not building the high-speed system, with its estimated price tag of $40 billion to $45 billion.

Sure, we'd save that money, but those "savings" would carry a steep price:

* We'd lose 160,000 construction jobs -- and all the economic stimulus of that vast payroll.

* We wouldn't have 400,000 new permanent jobs once the system begins to operate.

* We wouldn't see a reduction in our dependence on oil.

* We wouldn't get cleaner air, and we'd keep spending added millions each year in health costs attributed to air pollution.

* We'd lose a chance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12 billion pounds each year.

In short, the cost of not building the high-speed system is not zero.

In fact, in order to meet growing transportation needs, we'd have to spend two or three times as much money to expand highways and airports. Expanding Highway 99 in the Valley to an eight-lane interstate, for example, would cost as much as $25 billion alone.

We'd also lose federal funding that now appears on the horizon, as a growing bipartisan coalition in Congress seems ready to find the money to match state and private sector funding for such projects.

Other areas -- the Midwest, Texas, Florida, Colorado, the northeast corridor from Washington to Boston -- are working on their own high-speed rail plans. Right now, California stands at the head of the line for any federal funding, which Proposition 1A will require. But if the measure fails, we'll go to the very end of that line -- perhaps for decades.

The high-speed rail project is immense, and that can be daunting. The current economic situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. In the past, Californians have risen to such challenges with vision and determination. Voting "yes" on Proposition 1A is a declaration that we still possess those qualities, and have not surrendered them to a timid faith in a status quo that is no longer sustainable.