Should the question of whether to continue to fund and build the California High-Speed Rail project go back before voters for a decision?

• Julian Mancias: No. Let the politicians in Sacramento make the final decision. The voters have already approved the project.
• Lisa Pampuch: I’m torn, because I voted against the high-speed rail bond measure, but ultimately land on “no.” Voters approved this project despite its many flaws, including not knowing where billions of the project’s funding will come from. Absent evidence that the initial proposal was fraudulent, I think we have to live with the results of our broken initiative process.
• Jeff Nunes: Yes. It was sold to the people as costing 2 or 3 times less than what we have now been told, our state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and the politicians in Sacramento just keep ignoring the obvious and spending money we do not have on a project that is more luxury than need right now. If the electorate approves the project under the current conditions and with the elevated costs, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the financial repercussions.     
• Steve Staloch: Yes. The High Speed Rail Act, approved by voters in 2008, has been effectively derailed by blatant bait and switch tactics: The 2008 estimated project cost of $40 billion is now as high as $118 billion and serves far fewer cities; fare estimates have increased 62%; promises of a self-funded and profitable system requiring no new taxes – well, no real surprise there; 64% of voters want a do-over.
• Henry Miller: No. It has been voted on and passed, so let’s get on with it. We 1) are years behind so many other countries in terms of high-speed rail transit, 2) need to reduce dependence on cars, 3) can certainly use the jobs it will provide, and 4) besides all that, I’m a train lover!
• David Cohen: No. This is one of those projects that should be built and now is as a good time as any to do it. There will always be budget issues. There will always be something else to be prioritized. Our regional myopia stopped BART in Daly City. Think of the difference in construction costs then and now.
• Chris Bryant: No, this would just be a waste of tax payer dollars. This project will directly create CA jobs and will be a great long term benefit to CA and the environment.
• Bert Berson: No. The discussion is really about what California will be in the 21st Century. Will we continue to lead the nation and the world or fall into irrelevance. Enough is enough. Let’s get going.
• Karen Anderson: Yes. A lot of circumstances, particularly financial ones, have changed since the voters approved this project. For those of us in the Bay Area, it is not clear just how high the speed will be if we need to transfer in the Central Valley and go slow over Pacheco Pass.
• Jeff Smith: Yes, I think it should, and hopefully the voters will get it right. The fact is we don’t have the money! The state is going bankrupt, we’re in debt, and we cannot afford to continue to throw money at non-essential and wasteful projects and programs. We would do well to completely eliminate at least half the agencies/departments in this state and start living within our means before it is too late.
• Dennis Kennedy: No! The decision has been made; once by the voters, once by the state legislature and soon to happen, once by the governor. How many votes are enough? High Speed Rail is a visionary project, like the State Interstate Freeway system that will eventually help solve the state’s need for high volume, mass transportation throughout the state. Visionaries get it!
• Dave Appling: No. The people have spoken. Repeatedly. Get on with it: 60+ years behind Japan is enough. The project is not perfect; far from it. So this is the time to learn from test-bedding in the less complicated San Joaquín, and to optimize system routes and stations.