Well, Jarrett Stepman, there are a few factual irregularities in your article, below, but otherwise, you get it about right. We need to point out immediately that contrary to Mr. Stepman's contention, construction has not yet begun in California, anywhere.
"The LAO report contends that the odd placement for the new track was due to ill-advised policies of both state and federal agencies." The article in incorrect about attributing to the FRA the choice of the Central Valley as the venue for the initial construction, now scheduled for September 2012, or later. Roelof Van Ark has assumed ownership of that decision.
We have pointed out previously that there was a compelling reason for using valuable farm land in the Central Valley first for HSR construction. We should mention it again; it's part of the Democratic agenda. That political reason was that the White House recognized that Jim Costa, a Democratic Congressman, had to struggle to win his election last November. His district is in the heart of the Central Valley and incorporates a lot of that farm land and, at the same time, is the HSR intended route. Throwing federal funds at that target at that time was successful; Costa got re-elected. Now he's criticizing the independent LAO for it's criticism of the high-speed rail authority.
I should also say that the Democratic advocates appear to be impervious to the willful harm that will be created with the construction of the train in most regions of California. The farmers in the Valley are enraged by this obliviousness. We shall be hearing more from them!
I should also say that the Democratic advocates appear to be impervious to the willful harm that will be created with the construction of the train in most regions of California. The farmers in the Valley are enraged by this obliviousness. We shall be hearing more from them!
Also, it is the case that only in the Central Valley will it be possible to run the train at maximum speeds, 200 mph +. Both in the Bay Area and the LA Basin, high-density populations surround the intended rail route and make such speeds impossible. Also, the per mile costs will be the lowest in the Central Valley, where flat and straight routes are possible. In order for California to claim the leadership role in true HSR development, starting in the CV makes the most sense. That, at least, is the HSR perspective. What the rest of us think is a different story.
However, it does leave the rail authority vulnerable to attacks for seeking to build a "train to nowhere" just to get their shovels in the ground in the least contested region. As it turns out, the farmers are outraged and will sue the rail authority aggressively for their reckless intentions to destroy a lot of highly valuable farmlands. The "train to nowhere" label stems from the fact that it appears more and more likely that there will be no further funding available, leaving the 100 miles or so of track in the least populous region, with no possible ridership and no major cities connected.
Stepman's final point is flawed causality. He says, "California has a quickly degrading and poorly maintained system of roads, failing and overpriced public schools, consistently high taxes, and a hole in its budget a mile wide. The California high-speed rail fiasco is a perfect illustration of why all these pernicious problems have come to pass."
The "high-speed rail fiasco" is the result of a.) very poor planning, b.) self-serving, greedy agendas of back-room politicians, c.) gross mis-management, d.) uninformed people persisting in making major decisions, and e.) a completely misconceived notion of what high-speed rail can and can't do. It's a fiasco of their own making and cannot be blamed on all the other dumb mistakes of governance that have besieged California for decades. In short, Mr. Stepman, don't blame California for the "high-speed rail fiasco." The CHSRA has done that all by themselves.
=======================================
California High-Speed Rail Still on Track to Nowhere
by Jarrett Stepman
05/12/2011
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) in California has released a devastating report on the California High-Speed Rail project. The report highlights the follies of the project managers and the crippling fiscal impact the project will continue to have on state and federal-level coffers.
The California High-Speed Rail Act, which is now in its 15th year since being passed in 1996, established the California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) and detailed a plan to establish high-speed rail in California by 2020. The project has been bogged down by numerous delays and constant calls for additional funding.
The LAO report said, “In our view of the business plan in early 2010, we concluded that its funding assumptions are optimistic and that it’s unclear how the state will be able to secure the necessary funding to complete the project.”
The massive high-speed rail project poses an enormous challenge for a California budget that runs a deficit of nearly $15 billion. The most recent high-speed rail cost estimate of $43 billion is not only too low, but the project itself has no steady line of revenue.
The LAO said that the business plan includes “unrealistic assumptions about the receipt of federal funds to build the project, no discussion of the challenges of the general fund debt-service costs, as well as a lack of identified sources for other funding.” The annual debt service for the project alone could be “roughly $1 billion for the next two decades.” The debt-service cost may now be unavoidable because statewide voters approved Proposition 1A in 2008. The measure enacts the sale of $9 billion worth of bonds in 2008.
So a project with unrealistic cost estimates relies on an overtaxed California general fund and the overtaxed American people. Worse still is the LAO projection for ridership, and the unlikely completion of the track.
Construction of the high-speed rail did not begin until 2010, and when it did it was placed in an area between Fresno and Bakersfield in California’s Central Valley. Besides starting in the least economically viable section of the three sections of planned track, project managers are taking an enormous gamble in assuming that the entire project will be completed.
The LAO report contends that the odd placement for the new track was due to ill-advised policies of both state and federal agencies.
The HSRA chose to start the Bakersfield-Fresno section because they thought it would be the easiest section to maneuver around environmental laws and local opposition. Unfortunately for the project, the LAO reports, “Significant local opposition has arisen, relating largely to concerns over how the alignment of tracks could affect agricultural operations.”
A federal bureaucracy handled the transfer of stimulus package funds to the high-speed rail project. The Federal Rail Authority (FRA) mandated that the state obtain environmental clearance by 2011, which pushed the HSRA to start building in what it assumed would be the less environmentally restrictive Central Valley. The FRA realized that the deadline was too swift and changed it to 2017, but the HSRA had already made the decision to build in Bakersfield-Fresno.
The dilemma for the entire rail project is that the gamble to build the easiest portion of the track has already met significant resistance, and the costs have already run dramatically higher than predicted. The LAO stated, “The cost of the initial construction segment between Fresno and Bakersfield alone is now estimated to be $4.5 billion, which is 57% greater than was assumed in the original plan.
Those numbers extrapolated to measure the entire project would conservatively be $67 billion instead of $43 billion. That is, if there are relatively few difficulties throughout the course of the project.
If it turns out that California cries uncle and stops the funding for high-speed rail after the Bakersfield-Fresno section is finished, it will have successfully completed—after nearly two decades of funding and planning—a 120-mile track in one of the least populated and most agricultural parts of the state. On top of that, the completed high-speed rail would require massive subsidies just to survive.
The California high-speed rail has already taken nearly twice as long to complete as the Transcontinental Railroad, and it has yet to reap any benefits for the state of California or the nation.
California has a quickly degrading and poorly maintained system of roads, failing and overpriced public schools, consistently high taxes, and a hole in its budget a mile wide. The California high-speed rail fiasco is a perfect illustration of why all these pernicious problems have come to pass.
Jarrett Stepman is a graduate of UC Davis, where he studied Political Science. He is currently an intern for HUMAN EVENTS through the National Journalism Center.
