There's a lawsuit pending in court. Basically, it wants the court to render an opinion about the law.
Does Proposition 1A, the authorizing law for California's high-speed rail project, require that the rail authority have in hand and/or in the bank, the amount of funding necessary to build one complete segment fully operational for high-speed rail? And, if so, and if the rail authority isn't going to build that, will the court also find that the rail authority cannot legally use any state funds derived from the bond issue authorized by Proposition 1A?
As we know, construction in the Central Valley is slated to begin in late 2012. They have around $3.3 billion from the federal government and intend to match that with somewhat less than $3 billion from state funds under Prop. 1A.
However, Prop. 1A requires a fully operational rail segment that electrified high-speed rail can run on. What they intend to build is merely around 100 miles of track suitable only for Diesel Amtrak passenger rail, not high-speed rail. The question is, is that legal? The court must decide.
It is not that the lawsuit requires the rail authority to stop their intended construction. It just can't use state funds to do so. If the US DOT allows it, they could use the federal dollars to put down as much track as those federal funds allow, which isn't very much, but it does get the camel's high-speed rail nose in the California tent.
However, in previous communications from the DOT, the feds. reiterated their agreement with California that matching funds were promised and the award was made on those grounds. No bond funds; no nothin'.
We now have to wait and see what the court decides about this. I don't see how the project can continue without the state bond funds playing a significant role in development capitalization.
As much as they are reluctant to do so, the DOT should pull its funding as well. Thereby terminating this project with a wooden stake through its evil heart. But, this is a high-stakes game of politics (pun intended) and killing this money-vampire may be too much to ask or even hope for.
===========================================
A CA bullet train to nowhere?
by STEPHEN FRANK on 12/02/2011
Now, even government is warning that Arnold's choo choo train is a dud, a loser, a fraud, not going to happen.
“The initial segment of the proposed California high-speed passenger train system – from south of Merced to north of Bakersfield in the Central Valley – may be the only part of the vaunted system that’s ever built, warns a new report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The report says that the flow of federal funds has been stopped by Congress and that “it appears doubtful that substantial additional federal support will be forthcoming anytime soon.”
This makes it “increasingly likely” that the Central Valley segment – too short for high-speed trains – “may be all that is ever built,” the report says.”
This special interest boondoggle has cost us billions. [Not yet, but it's on its way, at the burn rate of around $750,000. each and every day. So far, they've spent around half a billion, maybe more.] Stop it now and we SAVE about $190 billion, plus billions in subsidies year after year if completed.
A bullet train to nowhere?
Central Valley Business Times, 11/30/11
• New analysis questions if it will ever be built
• ‘The draft business plan … portrays the project more favorably than may be warranted’
The initial segment of the proposed California high-speed passenger train system – from south of Merced to north of Bakersfield in the Central Valley – may be the only part of the vaunted system that’s ever built, warns a new report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The report says that the flow of federal funds has been stopped by Congress and that “it appears doubtful that substantial additional federal support will be forthcoming anytime soon.”
This makes it “increasingly likely” that the Central Valley segment – too short for high-speed trains – “may be all that is ever built,” the report says.
There remain a number of unanswered technical questions regarding whether the segment may be used to improve the existing San Joaquin Amtrak service, as suggested in the business plan, the report says.
The LAO report also questions fundamentals of the recently released draft business plan.
“Our preliminary review of the economic analysis in the draft business plan is that it may be incomplete and imbalanced, and therefore portrays the project more favorably than may be warranted. For example, the plan does not estimate economic loses from negative impacts to business from right-of-way acquisition and rail construction activities or from increases in urban traffic congestion around train stations,” it says.
It also faults another aspect of the high-speed rail’s draft business plan – how many people would ride the trains and how the cost of the system might compare with the costs of more highway and airport capacity.
“The draft business plan compares the estimated $99 billion to $118 billion cost of constructing high-speed rail with an estimated $170 billion cost of adding equivalent capacity to airports and highways. This comparison is very problematic because $170 billion is not what the state would otherwise spend to address the growth in inter-city transportation demand. The HSRA (High-Speed Rail Authority) estimates that the high-speed train system would have the capacity to carry 116 million passengers per year but their highest forecasted ridership is significantly less than that amount—44 million rides per year (roughly 40 percent less than capacity),” the report says.
The report has been presented to the California Assembly Transportation Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment