Skip to footer

California rail project: Who should pay?

California's high speed rail project will likely cost $100 billion to build and operate. But who should pay: California taxpayers or the federal government?

|
High Speed Rail Authority/AP/File
his 2009 file image provided by the California High Speed Rail Authority shows an artist's rendering of a high-speed train speeding along the California coast. The price tag for California's rail project is expected to hit $100 billion, raising questions about who should foot the bill.

California's High Speed Rail will likely cost $100 billion dollars to build and operate.  Who should pay for this? Given that the bulk of the benefits of this project will accrue to the people of California, it's not crazy to ask the people of California to pay for it.  But, the people of California are eager to spend "other people's money" and the Obama Administration has offered a fairly large upfront investment.  As reported in this blog,  the Obama Team is asking some tough questions focused on whether large deficit California will ante up and put roughly $3 billion of its own $ to pay for the train.  An interesting game of "Chicken" is emerging.  Will the Obama Team pull their Federal $ for the train if California doesn't pay its "fair share"?    During this time of national and state deficits, is this project a "good project"?

You might think that a $200,000 economic consulting study would be a valuable input in the decision process but I don't know of any consulting team with blue chip credentials who has been brought in to conduct this analysis.  In my "rational" world of public policy, the benefits and costs of each option are explored and quantified and the "known unknowns" are identified BEFORE an irreversible multi-billion dollar investment is made.  This is especially true in the case of rail that has a long history of not delivering the benefits its advocates promised before the project was implemented.   For folks looking for objective evidence that substantiate these points; please read this Don Pickrell paper  and my 2005 Brookings Institution paper with Nate Baum-Snow.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to California rail project: Who should pay?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Green-Economics/2012/0514/California-rail-project-Who-should-pay
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe