News

Opinion shifts against high-speed rail

New Field Poll shows nearly two-thirds of California voters support a new election on project

As the price tag for California's proposed high-speed-rail system continues to swell, so does public opposition to the voter-approved project, a new poll has found.

Nearly two-thirds of the voters surveyed by Field Poll said they would welcome a new vote on the project, which has seen its estimated cost nearly triple since voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the rail system in 2008. Voters also, by nearly a two-to-one margin, said they would reject the bond package if it were resubmitted to them.

The poll was conducted in the middle of November, two weeks after the California High-Speed Rail Authority released an updated business plan showing the cost of the proposed line rising from an earlier estimate of $43 billion to $98.5 billion.

The poll showed that 64 percent of the surveyed voters said they would support another public vote on the project, while 30 percent said they would oppose such a vote and 6 percent said they have no opinion. The poll also indicates that the desire to hold another vote transcends party lines. It showed 57 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of nonpartisan voters favor a new vote.

"There is strong sentiment for holding another vote across all partisan subgroups and irrespective of how voters may have voted on the project in the 2008 election," the poll states.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The poll also suggests that if another election were to take place, the project would be a tough sell. Of those surveyed, 59 percent said they would now vote against the project. This includes 73 percent of Republicans, 61 percent of nonpartisan voters and 49 percent of Democrats (40 percent of surveyed Democrats said they would support it).

The Field Poll question stated:

"Nine billion dollars in state bonds were approved by California voters for the High Speed Rail project in the November 2008 election. At the time, the project's estimated cost was $43 billion and its targeted completion date was 2020. More current estimates now put its cost at $98 billion and its completion date as 2033. Some think that the state legislature should resubmit the bond package to voters for another public vote next year.

Regardless of how you feel about the project, do you favor or oppose the legislature putting the 9 billion dollar state bond package to another public vote in next year's statewide elections?"

The poll result underscores the continuing uncertainty about the proposed rail system's funding plan and revenue projections. Over the past month, the new business plan been criticized by the Legislative Analyst's Office, the Palo Alto-based watchdog group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design and various legislators questioning the rail authority's plan to fund the system. The Palo Alto City Council, which supported the project in 2008, is now considering taking a firm stance against it and calling for state legislators to either pull the plug on high-speed rail or call for another election.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Some in the state Legislature have long questioned the rail authority's proposal to build the line. Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, has emerged as one of the leading critics of the project.

"What was sold to the people in California is not what we now see in the business plan," Harkey said during a Nov. 29 hearing on the project.

In response to the poll, the rail authority released a statement highlighting reasons for proceeding with the project, including the 100,000 jobs the authority expects high-speed rail to generate.

"To backpedal on this project means we reject billions in stimulus funds, lose 100,000 new jobs and, ultimately, pay tens of billions more for congested highways in the long run," the authority said in a statement. "The uncertain economy may give some voters pause, but this kind of infrastructure investment and job creation is exactly what we need at this time and we will be making that case to Californians across the state who voted to start this project in 2008."

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Opinion shifts against high-speed rail

New Field Poll shows nearly two-thirds of California voters support a new election on project

As the price tag for California's proposed high-speed-rail system continues to swell, so does public opposition to the voter-approved project, a new poll has found.

Nearly two-thirds of the voters surveyed by Field Poll said they would welcome a new vote on the project, which has seen its estimated cost nearly triple since voters approved a $9.95 billion bond for the rail system in 2008. Voters also, by nearly a two-to-one margin, said they would reject the bond package if it were resubmitted to them.

The poll was conducted in the middle of November, two weeks after the California High-Speed Rail Authority released an updated business plan showing the cost of the proposed line rising from an earlier estimate of $43 billion to $98.5 billion.

The poll showed that 64 percent of the surveyed voters said they would support another public vote on the project, while 30 percent said they would oppose such a vote and 6 percent said they have no opinion. The poll also indicates that the desire to hold another vote transcends party lines. It showed 57 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of nonpartisan voters favor a new vote.

"There is strong sentiment for holding another vote across all partisan subgroups and irrespective of how voters may have voted on the project in the 2008 election," the poll states.

The poll also suggests that if another election were to take place, the project would be a tough sell. Of those surveyed, 59 percent said they would now vote against the project. This includes 73 percent of Republicans, 61 percent of nonpartisan voters and 49 percent of Democrats (40 percent of surveyed Democrats said they would support it).

The Field Poll question stated:

"Nine billion dollars in state bonds were approved by California voters for the High Speed Rail project in the November 2008 election. At the time, the project's estimated cost was $43 billion and its targeted completion date was 2020. More current estimates now put its cost at $98 billion and its completion date as 2033. Some think that the state legislature should resubmit the bond package to voters for another public vote next year.

Regardless of how you feel about the project, do you favor or oppose the legislature putting the 9 billion dollar state bond package to another public vote in next year's statewide elections?"

The poll result underscores the continuing uncertainty about the proposed rail system's funding plan and revenue projections. Over the past month, the new business plan been criticized by the Legislative Analyst's Office, the Palo Alto-based watchdog group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design and various legislators questioning the rail authority's plan to fund the system. The Palo Alto City Council, which supported the project in 2008, is now considering taking a firm stance against it and calling for state legislators to either pull the plug on high-speed rail or call for another election.

Some in the state Legislature have long questioned the rail authority's proposal to build the line. Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, has emerged as one of the leading critics of the project.

"What was sold to the people in California is not what we now see in the business plan," Harkey said during a Nov. 29 hearing on the project.

In response to the poll, the rail authority released a statement highlighting reasons for proceeding with the project, including the 100,000 jobs the authority expects high-speed rail to generate.

"To backpedal on this project means we reject billions in stimulus funds, lose 100,000 new jobs and, ultimately, pay tens of billions more for congested highways in the long run," the authority said in a statement. "The uncertain economy may give some voters pause, but this kind of infrastructure investment and job creation is exactly what we need at this time and we will be making that case to Californians across the state who voted to start this project in 2008."

Comments

Old Ben
Shoreline West
on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Old Ben, Shoreline West
on Dec 6, 2011 at 1:41 pm

The taxpayers are entitled to recover every penny spent on this obvious scam.


Margaret
Willowgate
on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Margaret, Willowgate
on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:05 pm

Please, let us have a do-over on the vote.


Otto Maddox
Monta Loma
on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Otto Maddox, Monta Loma
on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:28 pm

Now that the truth about this boon doggle is there for all the world to see, how long until it's finally shut down and we (the taxpayers) quit throwing money into a losing proposition?

While I am confident not a single mile of track will ever be laid for this.. money is still being wasted "studying" things and holding meetings and hiring consultants and blah blah blah.

Good economy or bad it's still a massive waste of money.


Steve
Sylvan Park
on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Steve, Sylvan Park
on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm

How surprising. The railway to tomorrowland is overbudget, and likely doomed. How much was it we blew on Fantasy-Mountain View-of-the-Future sketches?


Kman
Monta Loma
on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Kman, Monta Loma
on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Agreed, what a waste. Lets face it, the government does not know how to run a business. If the government was a business it would of closed a long time ago. This HSR is like the pension system they use, keeps on ballooning exponentially every year.


Seer
Blossom Valley
on Dec 6, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Seer, Blossom Valley
on Dec 6, 2011 at 9:26 pm

The only think about HSR that is a "waste" is this particular project's management and planning. The Europeans and the Chinese are building HSR at lightning speed, and spending a tiny fraction of what we're spending. What's the difference? A national culture that support public transport without every NIMBY starting a lawsuit, governmental experience in building and administering it, and of course, more experience in general. I'm sure their first projects were a tough sell and expensive. So why not leverage their experience and have them build it for us? Based on some budgeting reports from Germany, our system should cost close to the original budget.


Old Ben
Shoreline West
on Dec 7, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Old Ben, Shoreline West
on Dec 7, 2011 at 12:02 pm

Apples and oranges. The Europeans and the Chinese don't have the level of corruption we have here. This thing has been a scam from the very start. The taxpayers should get a full refund of every penny spent.


George
Rex Manor
on Dec 7, 2011 at 2:32 pm
George, Rex Manor
on Dec 7, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Gee, do ya suppose that the original scam wasn't honestly priced ???

Vote Every friggen elected official out, again and again until we get honest WORKING folks in office that have run a business. No More "Career" politicians.. They are virtually ALL only thinking of brass tablets and public acclaim and the next election results... Send them all back to real work. From City Council to the White House. How many payrolls have any of them met ?
Dump the tracks to nowhere.


Really?
Cuesta Park
on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Really?, Cuesta Park
on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm

"the Chinese don't have the level of corruption we have here"

Are you kidding?


Steve
Sylvan Park
on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Steve, Sylvan Park
on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Perhaps replace 'corruption' with 'incompetence', or maybe 'stupidity'.


Hardin
Cuesta Park
on Dec 7, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Hardin, Cuesta Park
on Dec 7, 2011 at 6:18 pm

"The Europeans and the Chinese are building HSR at lightning speed, and spending a tiny fraction of what we're spending. What's the difference?"

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

The differences abound.

1. China, has an abundance of cash, and is desperately trying to find ways to spend it or invest it. As a side note, notice the safety and quality flaws they are experiencing now with their system. California is currently in the red, with no prospects of that changing in the near or long term.

2. European countries are tiny in comparison to the distances that would need to be covered in the US, even in California.

3. European countries do not have a car-centric culture, to the degree that the US has, which has influenced public policy and planning. Relatively speaking, gas is still really cheap here.

4. Having China or any other foreign entity build the HSR for us would not substantially lower costs (material costs, right of way acquisition), and would also route many needed dollars out of the state's economy into a foreign country. Let's remember that one of the benefits of large public projects is that they stimulate the local economy, by injecting dollars.

As you can see, the solution to the problems we're facing with transportation are not so one dimensional that simply spending a bunch of money to lay down tracks across the state will fix it.

This is certainly not a case of "If you build it, they will come."


Old Ben
Shoreline West
on Dec 8, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Old Ben, Shoreline West
on Dec 8, 2011 at 9:02 pm

Here's a very practical idea:

Web Link


Name hidden
Martens-Carmelita

on Jun 5, 2017 at 5:36 am
Name hidden, Martens-Carmelita

on Jun 5, 2017 at 5:36 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.