Excerpts from recent editorials about the state's rail project:

'California's high-speed rail project is going off the rails'

Washington Post, May 19

There's a scandal brewing in California, and we are not talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger. We refer to the $43 billion high-speed rail project in that state, to which the Obama administration has pledged more than $3 billion in federal funding, even though study after authoritative study has cast serious doubt on its financial feasibility.

The latest such report, issued May 10 by California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), finds the project's current governance structure is "too weak" to manage the massive project and that its business plan does not adequately consider debt service costs that could gobble up $1 billion of the state's budget per year through 2030.

Yet California's High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) is bound and determined to start building the railroad before its long-term funding is clear, and to do so in a part of the state where hardly anyone will want to ride. The HSRA chose to start work in a forlorn stretch of the Central Valley this September because the Obama administration said it had to, or else it would lose $2.3 billion of the $3 billion in federal money. And why did the administration favor the Central Valley, instead of a likelier location such as the Bay Area or Los Angeles-Anaheim? Because it wanted environmental permitting done quickly – and that seemed likelier in a part of the state with fewer people around to shout "not in my backyard …"

In short, California may be about to spend a fortune to plan and build a stretch of high-speed track that would end up as a railroad to nowhere in the all-too-likely event that funding for the rest of the system never materializes…

'California's high-speed train wreck'

Los Angeles Times, May 16

California's much-vaunted high-speed rail project is, to put it bluntly, a train wreck. Intended to demonstrate the state's commitment to sustainable, cutting-edge transportation systems, and to show that the U.S. can build rail networks as sophisticated as those in Europe and Asia, it is instead a monument to the ways poor planning, mismanagement and political interference can screw up major public works …

We pointed out back in 2008, before voters approved nearly $10 billion in state bonds to fund the project under Proposition 1A, that it would be more expensive and difficult to build than its backers were letting on. But we endorsed it anyway because of the economic and environmental benefits the train could bring. The benefits still outweigh the costs, and none of the $43 billion project's troubles are insurmountable.

The train's biggest problems can be laid at the feet of the High-Speed Rail Authority, which is overseeing its construction. Inexperienced board members appointed by the governor and Legislature on the basis of political patronage rather than expertise have made a host of poor decisions. Not the least boneheaded of these is the board's plan to take a circuitous route from Los Angeles to Bakersfield by veering through Palmdale and Lancaster. Compared with the more direct route along Interstate 5 through the Grapevine, this would add 30 miles to the trip plus $1 billion in construction costs, and make it all but impossible for the train to meet its promised travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from L.A. to San Francisco. The legislative analyst calls for slashing the authority's proposed budget for next year by $185 million and eventually eliminating it, transferring the bullet train's oversight to another agency. We heartily agree.

Not all of the bad decisions can be blamed on the rail authority. To qualify for federal funds, planners had to agree to break ground by 2012. With political battles raging throughout the state over routing decisions, federal officials deemed that the only segment that would be ready for construction so quickly was in the sparsely populated Central Valley. As a result, the bulk of the $3.5 billion kicked in by the Obama administration must be spent on a train running between the tiny towns of Borden and Corcoran. Ridership on this initial segment would be slight, making it impossible to operate the train without taxpayer subsidies. Yet under the terms of Proposition 1A, the state can't issue bonds to pay for the project unless it has been demonstrated to be self-sufficient. What's more, if federal and other funds for further construction dry up, California could end up with an expensive train to nowhere.

The only practical way out of this mess is to follow the legislative analyst's advice and start over, renegotiating terms with the federal government and building the initial segment in a more populous area, such as between San Francisco and San Jose or between Los Angeles and Anaheim …

'Rail project shouldn't become political fight'

The Fresno Bee, May 11

The Legislative Analyst's Office report misses the major reason that the San Joaquin Valley was selected for the first leg of California's high-speed rail project. The Valley is the perfect place to start given its relatively flat terrain and the region's open land between the population centers of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The LAO report says the first phase should be from L.A. to Anaheim or San Jose to San Francisco. But those routes are complicated by land acquisition issues and enough distance between stops to get the train to a steady 200-plus miles per hour. The Valley route makes much more sense to establish the high-speed train, and work out engineering issues before moving on to areas of higher population densities.

But the LAO report appeared to be more of a thinly veiled excuse to kill the high-speed rail project than sincere recommendations to improve the 800-mile system. We expected much more out of the LAO's office than a political document to undermine the project.

Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin's reaction to the report was correct, including the unwise recommendation of significant legislative intervention in the process.

"Can you imagine our state Legislature being responsible for that kind of decision when they can't even make run-of-the-mill decisions like balancing the budget?" Swearengin told The Bee.

"It would entirely be political, and would not be based on the effectiveness of the trains or the overall project."

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.