Paul Stanford
Staff Writer
Despite the fact that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is best known as a killer robot from the future, he remains responsible for maintaining one of the largest economies in the world.
Schwarzenegger has implemented policies and personal mantras to keep the state’s money in check. He practices his own new rule of rejecting legislation until a budget is proposed. Yet, ultimately, policies like these only make a dent in the looming monetary crisis of our economy.
Forethought and intense decision-making are necessary for projects that require Californians’ money. One such project involves the proposed erection of a high-speed rail line that would run through virtually the entire state of California.
This mammoth project has been in the making for over ten years, yet the legislation was not signed until Aug. 26.
The approval went against the governor’s own rule, as the Legislature has not passed a budget. However, the estimated cost of the train could reach as high as $40 billion.
The train is appealing to state leaders and voters due to its speed, low emissions and the increasing decay of alternative transportation.
When completed, the train could allow a traveler to be transported from Los Angeles to San Francisco in two-and-a-half hours. It can travel along the track at 220 miles per hour, and, if built, will stretch across the state from San Diego to Sacramento.
The economic and long-term benefits of such a train system have proven successful elsewhere.
In places such as Japan and Europe, similar trains have been in operation for many years. They provide an alternative to high-emission transportation, such as cars and airplanes, reducing carbon dioxide emission by 12 billion pounds per year by 2030.
If the trains are not built, alternative measures will need to be implemented, such as adding nearly 3,000 miles of freeway lanes. The cost of the alternative measures is estimated at over $80 billion.
While revenue from the train is estimated at $1 billion per year, the initial funding is primarily a burden on taxpayers. An almost $10 billion bond measure will be on the ballot in November 2008, which will allow taxpayers to have a say on the issue.
While the prospect of this train may be alluring for the engineering aspects, such as its incredible ground speed, voters should take into account other facets of the project’s fiscal burden.
The vote for the bond measure comes down to what Californians think they need more — a high-speed train or $10 billion toward more important state projects.
On the surface, the eventual profits and outward practicality of the train seem to be beneficial.
Los Angeles residents may lean more toward improving the public transportation of their own city, with the outdated subway system that goes nowhere and a few hundred frustratingly slow buses.
In theory, Los Angeles residents could get a job in San Diego and possibly have a shorter commute by train (just over an hour) than if they worked in their own traffic-ridden city.
For over $200, a person could fly from L.A. to San Francisco, then wait in line at security and expect delays, all while contributing to global warming.
The train alternative would cost about $30, have comparable travel times without the delay of an airport and produce far less carbon emissions. These days, with skyrocketing gas prices, driving would be a more costly mode of transportation.
However, looking past the superficial features of the project, it is apparent that the execution of such a rail system does not fit with the rest of California’s policies.
Schwarzenegger is allowing this bond measure on the ballot, and he knows the financial consequences of building the train system. However, he has made recent sacrifices that seem to indicate wavering confidence in the stability of the state’s economy.
This past summer, Schwarzenegger suddenly eliminated the jobs of 22,000 state workers. Furthermore, he cut the pay of over 200,000 state workers down to minimum wage.
This tactic negatively affects thousands of public servants, yet will only generate about a billion dollars every month for the state. The cut came after state legislators argued for months about how to fix a $15 billion budget shortfall.
With the overall state of the economic crisis and the specific issue of building the train system, Californians will be forced to make some difficult decisions in the coming years. They will have to determine whether or not luxuries, such as an expensive train system, are beneficial.
Governor Schwarzenegger has proven that maintaining our state’s money is a principal concern, so I think it might be wise to hold off on massive developments that will dramatically hinder the state’s wallet until we can confidently implement it within a more stable economy.
09-04-2008
