California Proposition 1A, High-Speed Rail Bond Measure (2008)

California California Proposition 1A
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Bond issues and Transportation
Status Approved
Type Bond issue	Origin State Legislature

California Proposition 1A was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on November 4, 2008. It was approved.

A "yes" voted support issuing $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, including $9.00 billion for the planning and construction of an 800-mile high-speed rail system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles.

A "no" voted opposed issuing $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, including $9.00 billion for the planning and construction of an 800-mile high-speed rail system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles.

Overview

Proposition 1A authorized the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds, including $9.00 billion for the planning and construction of an 800-mile high-speed rail system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. Proposition 1A's remaining $950 million in bonds was intended for commuter rail systems that provide connections to the high-speed rail’s facilities. Proposition 1A said the high-speed train would need to move at a speed of at least 200 mph and connect San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 ⅔ hours.

Election results

California Proposition 1A
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		6,680,485	52.62%
No		6,015,944	47.38%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Timeline

• June 10, 2021: Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation had restored $929 million in grant funding for the high-speed rail project. He said, "We thank the Biden-Harris Administration and Secretary Buttigieg for their partnership on this important step forward."

• February 12, 2020: The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) announced that the cost estimate for the project was $80.3 billion.

• May 16, 2019: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced that it was terminating $929 million in federal grants for the high-speed rail project. The FRA said the state "repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the FY10 agreement and has failed to make reasonable progress on the project. Additionally, California has abandoned its original vision of a high-speed passenger rail service connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, which was essential to its applications for FRA grant funding."

• February 19, 2019: The U.S. Department of Transportation announced that $929 million in federal grants slated for the high-speed rail project were being canceled. The department also announced that it was "actively exploring every legal option" for the return of $2.5 billion in grants that were previously distributed for the project.
  • Gov. Newsom responded to the department's announcement, saying, "It’s no coincidence that the Administration’s threat comes 24 hours after California led 16 states in challenging the President’s farcical ‘national emergency.' The President even tied the two issues together in a tweet this morning. This is clear political retribution by President Trump, and we won’t sit idly by. This is California’s money, and we are going to fight for it."

• February 13, 2019: President Donald Trump (R) called on the state government to return federal funds that were provided for the high-speed rail system. On Twitter, he said, "California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!"
  • Context: The federal government provided $3.5 million to California for the high-speed rail system, including $2.6 billion in stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2010. The federal government required a segment of the rail system, located in the Central Valley, to be constructed by December 2022. In November 2018, state auditor Elaine Howle said, “If the Authority does not complete the construction by the federal government's December 2022 deadline, it may need to repay $3.5 billion.”
  • On Twitter, Gov. Newsom responded to Donald Trump's statement, saying, "Fake news. We’re building high-speed rail, connecting the Central Valley and beyond. This is CA’s money, allocated by Congress for this project. We’re not giving it back. The train is leaving the station — better get on board! (Also, desperately searching for some wall $$??)" In his State of the State address on February 12, Newsom also said, "Abandoning high-speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it. And by the way, I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump."

• February 12, 2019: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) gave his State of the State Address and discussed the high-speed rail project, saying, "The project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency. Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA. I wish there were." Newsom said he wants a segment of the rail, Merced and Bakersfield, to be completed. He said, "However, we do have the capacity to complete a high-speed rail link between Merced and Bakersfield. I know that some critics will say this is a “train to nowhere.” But that’s wrong and offensive. The people of the Central Valley endure the worst air pollution in America as well as some of the longest commutes. And they have suffered too many years of neglect from policymakers here in Sacramento. They deserve better."
  • After Gov. Newsom's address, his spokesperson Nathan Click said that Newsom did not plan to cancel the project but was refocusing and reprioritizing funding to finish the section between Bakersfield to Merced. Click stated, "The state will continue undertaking the broader project—completing the bookend projects and finishing the environmental review for the SF to LA leg—that would allow the project to continue seeking other funding streams."
  • Brian Kelly, CEO of CHSRA, issued a statement following the address, saying, "The [governor] has called for setting a priority on getting high-speed rail operating in the only region in which we have commenced construction—the Central Valley. We are eager to meet this challenge and expand the project’s economic impact in the Central Valley. Importantly, he also reaffirmed our commitment to complete the environmental work statewide, to meet our “bookend” investments in the Bay Area and Los Angeles and to pursue additional federal and private funding for future project expansion."

• January 6, 2015: Construction of the high-speed rail system began in the Central Valley between Fresno to Madera.

• June 20, 2014: Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the state's budget legislation, allocating 25 percent of the revenue from the cap-and-trade program to the high-speed rail system.

• November 25, 2013: Judge Michael P. Kenny of the Sacramento Superior Court ruled in multiple lawsuits that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) did not follow requirements found in provisions of Proposition 1A. The judge prohibited the state from spending $8 billion in bonds until the requirements were met, including identifying $25 billion in additional funds.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 1A was as follows:

“

Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices. Reduces traffic congestion on the state's highways and at the state's airports. Reduces California's dependence on foreign oil. Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases. Establishes a clean, efficient 220 MPH transportation system. Improves existing passenger rail lines serving the state's major population centers. Provides for California's growing population. Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds. Requires that use of all bond funds is subject to independent audits. Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay bond principal and interest.

”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year. When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system. The costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.

”

Litigation regarding ballot language

The California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 3034 (AB 3034) to refer Proposition 1A to the ballot. AB 3034 included a provision prescribing the ballot language for the measure and prohibited the attorney general from changing the language.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Bowen, asking for a mandate to authorize Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) to write the ballot language rather than use the bill's language. The trial court declined HJTA's request. On January 27, 2011, the California Third District Court of Appeal ruled in the case, siding with HJTA. However, the election had occurred more than two years before the ruling. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that AB 3034's provision that prescribed the ballot language violated Proposition 9 (1974). The ruling stated:

“

...to the extent it specified the ballot label, title and summary to be used, the bill negated the Political Reform Act's requirement that the official summary of the bill be prepared by the Attorney General in addition to the ballot label and title that are prepared by the Attorney General. As we will explain, this ad hoc amendment of the Political Reform Act did not further the purposes of the Act and was not approved by the voters. Thus, it was invalid. Simply stated, the Legislature cannot dictate the ballot label, title and official summary for a statewide measure unless the Legislature obtains approval of the electorate to do so prior to placement of the measure on the ballot.

”

Support

Supporters

Parties

• California Democratic Party

Officials

• Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
• U.S. Rep. Jim Costa (D)
• U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren
• Asm. Fiona Ma (D)
• Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D), Los Angeles

Organizations

• California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Kern County Taxpayers Association
• California Public Interest Research Group
• California League of Conservation Voters
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• California State Association of Counties
• League of Women Voters of California

Arguments

The following argument was made in support of the ballot measure in the official voter guide:

“

Proposition 1 will bring Californians a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to soaring gasoline prices, freeway congestion, rising airfares, plummeting airline service, and fewer flights available. It will reduce California’s dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Proposition 1 is a $9.95 billion bond measure for an 800-mile High-Speed Train network that will relieve 70 million passenger trips a year that now clog California’s highways and airports—WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. California will be the first state in the country to benefit from environmentally preferred High-Speed Trains common today in Europe and Asia. Proposition 1 will bring California: —Electric-powered High-Speed Trains running up to 220 miles an hour on modern track safely separated from other traffic generally along existing rail corridors. —Routes linking downtown stations in SAN DIEGO, LOS ANGELES, FRESNO, SAN JOSE, SAN FRANCISCO, and SACRAMENTO, with stops in communities in between. —High-Speed Train service to major cities in ORANGE COUNTY, the INLAND EMPIRE, the SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, and the SOUTH BAY. —Nearly a billion dollars to beef up commuter rail systems that connect to High-Speed Trains. Proposition 1 will save time and money. Travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in about 2½ hours for about $50 a person. With gasoline prices today, a driver of a 20-miles-per gallon car would spend about $87 and six hours on such a trip. Ten years of study and planning have gone into PREPARING FOR construction, financing, and operation of a California bullet train network modeled on popular, reliable, and successful systems in Europe and Asia. Their record shows that High-Speed Trains deliver, both in service and economy. Air travelers spend more time on the ground than in the air today. Proposition 1 will create a new transportation choice that improves conditions at our major airports. There’s no room for more runways. High-Speed Trains can relieve that demand. Electric-powered High-Speed Trains will remove over 12 billion pounds of CO2 and greenhouse gases, equal to the pollution of nearly 1 million cars. And High-Speed Trains require one-third the energy of air travel and one-fifth the energy of auto travel. Proposition 1 will protect taxpayer interests: —Two independent ridership and revenue forecasts by outside experts were subject to tough peer review. —Existing High-Speed Train system operators are directly involved in oversight of the design of California’s system. —The new system will be subject to legal and financial oversight by the Governor, the Legislature, the Attorney General, and an independent outside expert. —Proposition 1 bond funds will provide a match for AT LEAST ANOTHER 9 billion dollars in federal funding and private investment. Vote Yes on Proposition 1 to IMPROVE MOBILITY and inject new vitality into California’s economy by creating nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs in related industries like tourism. These are American jobs that cannot be outsourced.

”

Opposition

Opponents

Parties

• California Libertarian Party

Organizations

• Council for Citizen's Against Government Waste
• California Taxpayer Protection Committee
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Reason Foundation
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Farm Bureau Federation

Arguments

The following argument was made in opposition to the ballot measure in the official voter guide:

“

NO on Prop. 1: $20 Billion Cost for Taxpayers Prop. 1 is a boondoggle that will cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion dollars in principal and interest. Taxpayers will foot this bill—it’s not “free money.” According to the measure (Article 3, Section 2704.10) “. . . the full faith and credit of the State of California is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal of, and interest on, the bonds . . ..” This measure will take $20 billion dollars out of the general fund over the life of the bonds. That’s over $2,000 for an average family of four! NO on Prop. 1: California Taxpayers Can’t Afford Higher Budget Deficits With our budget crisis, billions in red ink, pending cuts to health care, the poor, parks, and schools, now is NOT THE TIME to add another $20 billion in state debt and interest. The state already has over $100 BILLION DOLLARS in voter approved bonds and our bond rating is already among the worst in the nation and this could lower it even further. NO on Prop. 1—Better Uses for Taxpayer Dollars California has higher priorities than this $20 BILLION DOLLAR boondoggle. What would $20 billion buy? 22,000 new teachers, firefighters, or law enforcement personnel for 10 years. Health care for all children in the state for many years. Update and improve California’s water system to provide a reliable supply of safe, clean water. Upgrade and expand existing transportation systems including roads and transit throughout California, which would really reduce traffic and emissions. NO on Prop. 1—No Accountability Politicians and bureaucrats will control the money There is not ONE citizen member on the new “finance committee.” They are all politicians and bureaucrats. There are no reporting requirements so the public can see how the money is spent. No independent, outside audit is required. NO on Prop. 1—An Open Taxpayer Checkbook The total cost is estimated to be over $40 billion and some experts expect it to reach $100 billion ($10,000 for the average family of four). Section 1(d) says the bond funds are “. . . intended to encourage the federal government and the private sector to make a significant contribution toward the construction . . .” NOTE THE WORD “ENCOURAGED”—that’s bureaucratic language for “we will spend taxpayer money regardless of whether we ever get a penny from the private sector or the federal government.” In fact, $58 million in taxpayer money has ALREADY been spent on this project and not ONE FOOT of track has been laid. Now they want us to trust them with $10 BILLION more. NO on Prop. 1—Promoted by Special Interests for Special Interests The Association for California High Speed Trains is promoting this boondoggle. Their Board represents out-of-state special interests (France, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, New York City, Texas, and Illinois), many of whom stand to make millions if this measure passes. Please Join Us in Voting “NO” on Prop. 1

”

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

Month of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	Field Poll	56%	30%	14%
October 2008	Field Poll	47%	42%	11%

Media editorials

Support

• Los Angeles Times: "That's not too much to wager on a visionary leap that would cement California's place as the nation's most forward-thinking state."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "[Proposition 1A] presents an ambitious vision that is well tailored to the state's transportation and environmental needs. We recommend its passage."

• San Francisco Bay Guardian: "the costs of not approving this measure [are] huge."

• San Jose Mercury News: "[t]hese are the right things to do for the future, and putting them off will only increase the costs." "The proposal, years in the making, has been thoroughly vetted in public debate, particularly over the route. The High Speed Rail Authority made the right choices, coming up with a practical and visionary plan that will place San Jose and Silicon Valley at the heart of the Bay Area's economy. We recommend it."

• The Fresno Bee: "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."

• Del Mar Times: "Sometimes we need to look beyond the economic present with eyes squarely focused on the future and as a result, bring back a little shine to California's tarnished forward-thinking and environmentally friendly reputation."

• San Diego City Beat: "We think it’s worth it. We want what many Europeans and Asians already enjoy. Vote yes on Proposition 1A."

Opposition

• Orange County Register: "A high-speed rail system connecting Northern and Southern California is a nice dream, but the proposed project ventures into fantasyland territory."

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "it is hard to fathom how state voters could consider a Yes vote on Proposition 1A, which would issue $9.95 Billion in bonds as part of a $40 Billion-plus project to build high-speed trains linking Northern and Southern California."

• The Oakland Tribune: "instead of addressing our real transportation needs, Proposition 1A is asking taxpayers to spend the first tens of billions of dollars on what amounts to a Boondoggle Express rail system that won't be built for many years, if not decades."

• The Sacramento Bee: "Until California fixes its chronic budget deficits, it can't afford to increase its debt for projects that, while desirable, are not of vital necessity. In addition, the rail system that supporters are touting may not be as high-speed as advertised. Potential conflicts with freight service lines could make trains slower than those found in Europe or Japan." They go on, saying that "if it passed, this proposition would take $647 million annually from the general fund that, without a tax increase, would have to come from other services. That's money the state can't promise."

Path to the ballot

The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1A on the ballot via Assembly Bill 3034 of the 2007–2008 Regular Session (Chapter 267, Statutes of 2008).

Votes in legislature to refer to ballot
Chamber	Ayes	Noes
Assembly	58	15
Senate	27	10

The High Speed Train Bond Act was originally slated to appear on the November 2, 2004 ballot. However, Senate Bill 1169 (Chapter 71, Statutes of 2004) moved the measure from the 2004 ballot to the 2006 ballot.

When the vote to remove the High Speed Train Bond Act from the 2004 ballot was made as part of that year's budget act, the California Legislative Analyst's Office published a note stating that moving the vote into the future would significantly increase the total cost of building the high speed rail system: "The budget proposes to repeal Chapter 697, thereby removing the high-speed rail bond measure from the November 2004 ballot. Our review shows that postponing the bond measure to a later date would likely not cause delay in the development of a high-speed rail system. However, total costs of the system have been revised upward and will be significantly higher than previously reported to the Legislature."

Subsequently, Assembly Bill 713, Chapter 44, Statutes of 2006, provided for the submission of the Act on the November 4, 2008m general election ballot, rather than the November 7, 2006, ballot.

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Transportation on the ballot
• Bond issues on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• California Official Voter Guide for 2008 General Election