http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-flashman-high-speed-rail-california-20131216,0,3163870.story#axzz2nbHp6SXV
By Stuart Flashman, December 16, 2013
An artist's drawing shows a California high-speed train that's proposed to transport passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Two court decisions have blocked the California High-Speed Rail Authority from issuing more than $8 billion in bonds and from using bond funds on construction until it fixes its funding plan. Now what?
The authority says it
will move forward using federal funds. But as one of the attorneys who
successfully challenged the project, I can tell you that, on its present
track, the future looks bleak. A series of shortsighted political
decisions has left the state's high-speed rail system with an unworkable
plan that's doomed to failure. There may still be time, however, to get
it on the right track.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority was formed in 1996 after an extensive feasibility analysis by its predecessor, the California Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission. In 1999, the authority selected the Pacheco Pass and a Highway 99 alignment to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority was formed in 1996 after an extensive feasibility analysis by its predecessor, the California Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission. In 1999, the authority selected the Pacheco Pass and a Highway 99 alignment to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.
That purely political decision overrode years of analysis by the earlier commission and its consultants, who had identified Interstate 5 and the Altamont Pass as the least expensive and highest-ridership route. How did the switch happen? Power brokers in the Legislature and Silicon Valley and mayors of Central Valley and Antelope Valley cities pushed their narrow self-interests, and the authority's board of directors succumbed to that political pressure.
The resulting route, however, is longer, slower and much more expensive than it should be, making it unprofitable. On top of that, the state bond measure funding it, Proposition 1A, prohibits the system from receiving operating subsidies. The combination has resulted in a project that private rail operators, such as those in Europe and Japan, have shunned.
With no private capital available, the authority nevertheless embarked on plans to build a $31-billion segment from Merced to the San Fernando Valley. It insists that private investment will follow once that first segment is built and is shown to be profitable. However, the current funding shortfall — the authority has only $6 billion available — violates the voter-approved bond measure's requirements.