California's high-speed rail isn't California's problem alone any more. It's no longer local news; it has become a national problem and the Wall Street Journal's Online Opinion Editorial makes that point. The message? Stop the project now.
What the WSJ here is saying should be paid attention to. Changing management won't cut it. They say this in a colorful way: ". . . playing bureaucratic musical chairs won't redeem an irredeemable plan." The key to the entire problem, right now, comes down to this; that what the CHSRA has been cooking for decades is an "irredeemable plan."
What all the promoters, politicians and rail industry associates have been telling us about the benefits, given the huge costs, is vague and wooly. Yes, they trot out a lot of numbers which, upon scrutiny, turn out to be fabrications.
Shouldn't all smart Americans have already become sensitized to all the irrational advertising promises, such as vast numbers about to be employed with permanent jobs, a cleaned up atmosphere, the termination of need for foreign oil, a newly stimulated economy, faster than flying and at lower costs, the end of traffic congestion, and on and on? Aren't there, in this litany of cures, just too many beneficial results from one fast luxury train? Shouldn't this make even the most gullible among us a teensy bit suspicious?
When the President, seeking to appear like JFK and his intention to get us to the moon in ten years, promises that 80% of all of us will be able to ride high-speed rail in 30 years, does he intend for that to sound practical, desirable and realistic? Theoretically, all Americans can ride the Acela right now if they choose. That can't be what he means. He is suggesting -- intimating -- that 80% of all of us are likely to ride high-speed trains when we have them. And, that makes no sense whatsoever. Even if most of us could, why would we?
All this boils down to building a high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. I don't doubt, with enough money, that it can be done. But, again I have to ask, why would we? What actually will we have when we have it? We can now fly, whenever we wish, from three airports in the Bay Area, to about 8 airports in the LA Basin. 8 or 9 million of us do that every year.
Why should we give that up to ride more slowly and at greater expense? The rail authority is determined to reduce short-haul air traffic as the marker of their success. Why would we want to spend our tax dollars, $100 billion of them, to build such a luxury train so that a few of us who can afford the tickets can have government subsidized rides?
When you really think about it, it makes no sense whatsoever. The Wall Street Journal article throws more light on this strange situation, and why it's so irrational.
=============================
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
MAY 18, 2011
California's Next Train Wreck
The feds vs. the Golden State's fiscal watchdogs.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced last week that he plans to divert to California some $300 million in high-speed rail funds that Florida rejected. Nice timing. California's Legislative Analyst's Office released a study last week warning the state legislature not to appropriate funds for the same project.
The state legislature's fiscal watchdog says California's high-speed rail authority, which is responsible for planning and overseeing the project, has grossly underestimated the cost. The authority projects that the 500-mile bullet train between Anaheim and San Francisco will cost $43 billion. The analysts start at $67 billion, which they say will go higher if there are construction overruns in metropolitan areas. When are there not such overruns?
Good luck finding that $67 billion. State taxpayers approved a $9 billion bond measure in November 2008 based on the authority's assurance that the federal government and private investors would provide $30 billion in capital. The feds have only appropriated about $3.6 billion, and House Republicans aren't about to subsidize any more. The authority also imagines that local agencies and businesses will chip in $15 billion, but the only people who want to invest in this California Dream are Democratic politicians.
Then there's the not-so-small issue of how the state will fund the choo-choo's day-to-day operations. The authority pegs the initial operating cost at about $1 billion per year, if you choose to believe in miracles. If ridership falls short of the authority's rosy forecasts, the train will need a subsidy, which the bond measure that voters approved prohibits.
The authority nonetheless seems intent on charging full speed ahead before California legislators come to their senses and call the whole thing off. Construction on the first $5.5 billion segment between Borden and Corcoran is set to begin in the fall of 2012.
Why Corcoran? To qualify for stimulus funds, the state had to agree to build the first segment in the Central Valley. The Obama Administration reasoned that building in rural areas would incur less political opposition. Even San Francisco Bay area liberals were up in arms about the rail's intrusions on their upper-income tranquility. Farmers whose land is going to be ripped up by tracks don't get the same hearing with Mr. LaHood.
The Analyst's Office is begging the rail authority to reconsider the location of the first segment. The report calls it a "big gamble" since ridership won't be enough to operate the train without a giant subsidy. And if the state can't come up with enough money to finish the route, a stand-alone segment in the Central Valley would literally be a train to nowhere and a big drain on taxpayers.
After more or less making the case for stopping the project in its tracks, the analysts couldn't bring themselves to recommend killing it. Instead, the report advises the legislature to strip the rail authority of decision-making powers and hand control to another government agency that's supposedly more accountable and has more expertise. But playing bureaucratic musical chairs won't redeem an irredeemable plan.
Congress ought to tell Mr. LaHood to devote the $300 million to reducing the federal deficit. And California's legislature had better pull the plug on the project before it blows up on taxpayers.
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
