In a follow up to our post about high speed trains (Would A Bullet Train Fly In The U.S.?), voters in California will decide on the fate of a proposed $45 billion bullet train project. On November 4th, Californians will be asked to vote on Proposition 1A, which would authorize a $10 billion down-payment for the 800 mile rail network. Proponents of the rail plan tout the 220 mph bullet train as a game-changing and viable alternative to the car culture that dominates the Golden State. Many argue that, after decades of stops and starts, a high speed rail network is just what is needed (considering CA’s commitment to lowering emissions, encouraging green alternatives to cars and planes and today’s rising gas prices). Others point to the recent economic crisis, the annual state deficits and the recent Metrolink train accident as reasons why it doesn’t make sense to focus on what Eric Bailey of the LA Times calls “the most ambitious public works effort since completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869.”

Construction would begin in 2011, with service expected to commence 2020. A trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco would take a little more than 2 hours and cost $55. Sign us up! But something tells me it’s the wrong time to be asking voters to think about $45 billion rail projects.