California's high-speed rail project has made significant progress in the past three months. That came through at a state Senate hearing last Monday.

Ridership estimates have been revised to be more conservative.

Costs have been revised upward – assuming higher inflation levels and building a 22 percent contingency reserve into each phase of construction. With these more honest numbers, real discussions can begin on what is possible at each stage.

The aim in the latest business plan is to build "funding confidence" by constructing the system in small, discrete segments, corridor by corridor as funds become available, as other countries have done.

The project has $6 billion to complete the initial 130-mile backbone in the Central Valley – with $3.3 billion from the federal government and sale of $2.7 billion from California's voter-approved Proposition 1A bonds, subject to legislative sign-off.

The rail authority also is working better with local commuter rail systems to create a "blended" system with high-speed rail – from Caltrain in the Bay Area to Metrolink in Los Angeles. The new business plan calls for early investments in regional rail using $950 million in Proposition 1A bonds.

In terms of perception, however, things are heading the opposite direction. Polls show public support eroding since the 2008 passage of Proposition 1A bonds. State legislators are nervous about the 25-year price tag. The Legislative Analyst's Office remains highly skeptical about future funding. In Congress, the Republican-majority House wants a timeout on federal funding.

The main concern: How can we embark on construction of an infrastructure project of this magnitude in a time of economic difficulty?

Dan Richard, one of Gov. Jerry Brown's new appointments to the High-Speed Rail Authority, believes hard times are the right time. Not only does it create jobs, it makes the cost of land acquisition and construction cheaper. As a BART board member in the 1990s, he recalls trying to build a segment to the San Francisco airport during an economic boom. "It sucked," he says, because land prices and construction bids were sky high.

"Time is not our friend," he told legislators on Monday. A timeout would increase costs. If legislators want to chop billions off the cost, "help us do it quicker," he said.

The LAO is right that the High-Speed Rail Authority is behind in hiring staff needed to begin construction in 2012. That should be a high priority. Another should be downsizing spending on public relations boosterism.

In the end, this is about confidence – willingness to embrace engineering and financial challenges, and to tolerate risk. Rather than issue a premature requiem for high-speed rail, we should be figuring out how to make it work.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.