Halt California funds for high-speed rail: budget watchdog

SAN FRANCISCO, April 17 Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:41pm EDT

Related Topics

SAN FRANCISCO, April 17 (Reuters) - California lawmakers should not approve Governor Jerry Brown's budget proposals to provide additional funds for the state's pricey planned high-speed rail system, the state's budget watchdog agency said in a report on Tuesday.

The report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said the California High-Speed Rail Authority has "not made a strong enough case for going forward with the project at this time."

The report comes after the authority earlier this month slashed its construction cost estimates by some $30 billion to $68.4 billion, tackling some of the cost concerns hanging over the project in the legislature, whose members must approve the release of the first chunk of the nearly $10 billion in rail bond funds voters approved in 2008.

Funding beyond proceeds from state debt and $3.5 billion from the federal government to build the statewide high-speed system is "highly uncertain," the report said.

"Specifically, funding for the project remains highly speculative and important details have not been sorted out. We recommend the Legislature not approve the Governor's various budget proposals to provide additional funding for the project," according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

The office noted that plans for using revenue raised through California's new carbon trading system for reducing greenhouse emissions to help build the system are speculative and that "important details regarding the very recent, significant changes in the scope and delivery of the project have not been sorted out."

The report also cast doubt on prospects for ongoing federal funding for California to build its planned high-speed rail network, intended to connect the most populous U.S. state's far-flung metropolitan areas.

"Given the federal government's current financial situation and the current focus in Washington on reducing federal spending, it is uncertain if any further funding for the high-speed rail program will become available," the report said.

"In other words, it remains uncertain at this time whether or not the state will receive the necessary funds to complete the project," the report added.

Other funding sources also are in doubt, the report said, noting that "it is unclear how much, if any, other non-state funds (such as local funds, and funds from operations and development, or private capital) have been secured. In total, only $11.5 billion (or about 17 percent of the estimated funds needed to complete the project have been committed."

While the Legislative Analyst's Office urged putting the brakes on the high-speed rail project, it recommended lawmakers provide some minimal funding for it to continue some planning efforts, specifically around environmental and initial engineering review, that are underway to keep options for it open.

Brown is staunchly supporting building the high-speed rail system but fellow Democrats who control the legislature are nervous about committing $2.7 billion in state funds to break ground on it.

Republicans in the legislature, like Republicans in Congress, oppose proceeding with the project. One Republican state senator has proposed a bill to put state bonds for the project to a new statewide vote.

Brown's office was not immediately available for comment on the report.

Dan Richard, who Brown appointed to the California High-Speed Rail Authority to improve its management and produce a business plan for its planned system that lawmakers could rally around, said the report overlooked benefits of bullet trains - and that federal dollars are at stake.

State bonds would unlock money for Washington to help start building the system.

The Legislative Analyst's Office did not take stock of "significant environmental and economic benefits of reducing freeway pollution, improving transportation and creating jobs," Richard said. "This project is important for California and it would be a mistake to delay this project and lose billions of dollars in critical federal funds."

Mary Nichols, chairman of California's Air Resources Board, said a building a high-speed rail network would help the state meet its aggressive goals for reduce greenhouse emissions.

"Not only does it take millions of tons of greenhouse gases out of the air, it is also goes to the heart of the law itself, transforming California's economy to clean energy and clean technology and breaking our century-long dependence on fossil fuels," Nichols said. (Reporting By Jim Christie; Editing by Eric Walsh)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
GHM wrote:
The report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said the California High-Speed Rail Authority has “not made a strong enough case for going forward with the project at this time.”
if you wait the cost will double or triple

Apr 17, 2012 12:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Freddel wrote:
Funding for the project remains highly speculative and inadequate and important details have not been sorted out. This is the TRAIN TO NOWHERE. Californians voted to spend $10 billion from selling bonds that the project will never be able to service out of train fares. So taxpayers will be funding this out of general revenues. This boondoggle is favored by contractors, engineers, environmentalists and California airheads who think it would be cool to have a fast choo-choo train running from the middle of nowhere in Southern California to the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. The over-promised service levels will never be reached.

Apr 18, 2012 3:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.