While we at the California High-Speed Rail Authority don’t second-guess the
will of the voters the way Jon Coupal seems to – instead we make it our
mission to carry out the will of the voters – we actually agree with the
position of the taxpayer advocate who doesn’t want a single cent of the
taxpayers’ dollars wasted. We want to ensure that the $9 billion voters
decided to put toward the construction of a high-speed rail system is not
wasted and is used to its fullest effect. And in fact we have a plan to grow
that $9 billion into the $42.6 billion needed to construct the project.
So, in that light, let us run through a number of reasons we think taxpayers
would be pleased at the approach taken by the High-Speed Rail Authority.
First, investment in infrastructure is good for our economy. Without a
doubt, putting money into brick-and-mortar construction creates jobs and
spurs economic stimulus. In the case the of the high-speed train project, a
conservative estimate shows we’d create 600,000 construction related
job-years over the life of the project’s construction and 450,000 permanent
jobs thereafter. The benefits of $43 billion pumped into our economy cannot
be overstated.
Which brings me to the second point: it should be noted that California will
put up only 25 percent of the cost of this project, but will reap 100
percent of the benefits. One hundred percent of the jobs, 100 percent of the
assets, 100 percent of the environmental benefits will be in California,
despite the state having put up only 25 percent of the capital. Any business
person or taxpayer advocate would say this is a good deal for the state.
Third, our state needs additional modes of transportation to maintain our
economy. It’s vital to our continued economic strength, and in order to keep
our economy humming over the next two decades as our state’s population
swells by a third to 50 million residents, we must be able to move goods and
people throughout the state more efficiently than we are able to today. That
means more roads, or it means more airports, or it means alternative modes
of transportation. High-speed rail is the most cost-effective mode of
transportation to construct and maintain, and it will carry enough people
such that it will reduce the need to add lane-miles to freeways or departure
gates and runways to airports.
Here’s something else that we know Jon Coupal would be laudatory of: the
high-speed rail project’s business plan calls for a reliance on contractors,
rather than on state public employees. Now, that makes good sense for our
project, as it will move through several phases that require expertise in
certain areas only for a finite period of time; it makes more sense to hire
environmental planners only for the environmental planning phase rather than
bringing them on as state staff and then being forced to find work for them
after the environmental planning for the project is complete, for example.
But it also means the state is getting a better bargain for its dollar.
Contract language and risk management mechanisms ensure that taxpayers are
getting what they asked for, on schedule, and for a better deal than if the
state itself was managing the project.
Lastly, unlike highways or airport runways or any other mode of
transportation, the high-speed rail system will pay for itself and require
no government subsidy for its operation. Whether that means a ticket to ride
it from San Francisco to Los Angeles will cost $50 or $150, we’ve shown that
the system will produce a profit. The actual price of a ticket won’t be
decided for several years (heck! we don’t even have a single shovel in the
ground yet, much less a ticketing operation!) but under a number of
scenarios we can see that the system will generate revenue, just as
high-speed rail systems do around the world. We can’t understand why the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association wouldn’t be applauding that.
What’s more – and contrary to Jon Coupal’s assertion – tremendous momentum
is building for high-speed rail in California. Voters last November said yes
to high-speed rail, then two months later we got a president who strongly
supports high-speed rail to the degree he included $8 billion for its
development in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and advocated for
a continuing appropriation for its construction. Congress has put its
support behind high-speed rail construction. Private companies and other
countries that have high-speed rail have been beating down California’s door
to be part of our project – because they know it will be successful and they
know it will generate revenue.
At the High-Speed Rail Authority, we’re keeping our sights focused on
carrying out the will of the voters of California – and that means creating
jobs and improving our state by responsibly and transparently building a
desperately needed transportation alternative.