California panel declares high-speed rail project “not financially feasible”
posted at 2:40 pm on January 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
When the California legislature undertook the most expensive public-works project in American history, they also created an independent review board to ensure that the LA-to-San Francisco high-speed rail project would have solid financial footing. Perhaps they intended this panel to be a public-relations rubber stamp, but if so, it just proves that their miscalculations weren’t limited to cost projections. Yesterday, the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group sent a “scathing” letter to the political leadership in Sacramento, calling the project’s finances and costs “fundamentally flaw[ed]” (via Andrew Malcolm):
In a scathing critique that could further jeopardize political support for California’s proposed $98.5-billion bullet train, a key independent review panel is recommending that state officials postpone borrowing billions of dollars to start building the first section of track this year.
Gov. Jerry Brown has said he will ask the Legislature in the coming months to issue the first batch of $9 billion in voter-approved bonds for a high-speed rail network that backers say will create jobs, help the environment and transform the state’s economy.
But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public’s interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan “is not financially feasible.” As a result, the panel said, it “cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project.”
So who sat on this expert panel? Amazingly, some actual experts:
The panel includes private-sector financial experts, a University of California dean of engineering, a former Caltrans director and a local government representative. Their warnings are likely to weigh heavily on lawmakers as they consider the project in coming months, said Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), a longtime supporter of high-speed rail who has grown increasingly concerned about the project. Simitian has raised the possibility of putting the entire project on hold for a year to reevaluate the current plan.
“We can’t simply dismiss the legitimate concerns by a group of this caliber,” Simitian said. “Denial is not going to move the project forward.”
The chair of the Rail Authority claims that the report is both misleading and “deeply flawed”:
Tom Umberg, chairman of the authority board, said in a letter to lawmakers that the report is “deeply flawed, in some areas misleading and its conclusions are unfounded.” He appealed to lawmakers to look beyond it as they reconvene for the year on Wednesday. “As the report presents a narrow, inaccurate and superficial assessment of the HSR program,” Umberg wrote, “it does a disservice to policy-makers who must confront these decisions.”
Of course, this comes from the same Rail Authority that initially predicted that the project would cost $33 billion, only to admit three years later that projected costs had nearly tripled to $98.5 billion … before ground had even been broken on the project. Something tells me that between the Rail Authority and the CHSRPRG, the latter will have more credibility than the former with legislators who have to explain borrowing for a project when California can’t pay its bills now.
Will the panel’s report change the mind of Governor Jerry Brown? Of course not:
Brown spokesman Gil Duran said in an e-mail that the Peer Review Group’s report “does not appear to add any arguments that are new or compelling enough to suggest a change in course.”
Hey, if Brown thinks that a project whose costs have tripled from their earlier estimates — the estimates on which voters relied when approving the project in 2008 — presents no fiscal problems, then why should he worry when the state-mandated review board tells him that the project can’t work? Sounds like California’s political class has learned nothing from their financial travails of the last several years. Voters, on the other hand, might have other ideas of fiscal sanity — and perhaps start cleaning house in the legislature in the fall before the legislature cleans them out financially for good.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Bad news: NY governor not exactly thrilled about big Weiner comeback

Terry McAuliffe suddenly all about the offshore drilling in Virginia

House Judiciary Committee to Justice: Explain snooping on AP, please






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
More Agenda 21. Grabbing up as much land as possible.
katy on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Washington, DC aside, why does the federal government own any land..?
affenhauer on May 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Ya know, I think the GOP has stumbled upon a brilliant way to force some budget cuts. First we had it at the FAA, now at Interior:
1) Cut everything by XX%
2) People start screeching
3) You point out that “well, here’s where you could have saved that money”
4) Pass legislation reallocating the would-have-been-wasted funds to actual good stuff
5) Obama signs it.
If Step 2 doesn’t happen, we’ve won. If step 4 doesn’t happen, point out that “the democrats wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”. If step 5 doesn’t happen, scream and shout that “Obama wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”
Mohonri on May 1, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Le bravo, Erika!
Yup. Filthy sob’s.
petefrt on May 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM
So they can hire people to manage it.
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM
And the really sad thing (and if you’re a liberal you would be intellectually dishonest to admit it) the properties would have been LESS developed and LESS crowded and BETTER managed if the gubmint had just kept their grubby paws off….
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM
deny it…sorry
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Katy got it on comment number one.
tom daschle concerned on May 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM
I suggest either:
1. The US Government sells all its lands back to the states in which the land is located, or
2. The US Government turns over operations to private, competitively bid contractors. Present US park employees would have first dibs on jobs, now private, assuming they are qualified. A small staff of government employees would remain to handle oversight of private companies.
#2 would shift the burden of federal employees from the government to the private secor. This would increase tax revenue because now the government would not have to pay these employees and the private contractor would pay taxes on profits. I expect that the private sector would be more efficient, being profit oriented, than the employees that have now no or little accountability.
If #1 goes ahead, I suggest the sale be contingent on the states adopting #2 making park operations private.
I’d like to see this across the board with as many agencies as possible.
billrowe on May 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM
That would be giving up power. Not gonna happen. They can’t even get rid of empty buildings that we are paying for, or empty bank accounts with monthly fees. How could this clown troupe ever actually get rid of LAND?
iurockhead on May 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM
And you wonder why “tin hats” believe government is buying up ammunition in order to drive prices sky high.
GarandFan on May 1, 2013 at 5:55 PM
They own most of the West. Why don’t we give it back to the Native Americans? At least they are savvy businessmen and would let energy companies lease it back!
PattyJ on May 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Since I cancelled satellite I’m getting reaquinted with OTA TV. Been watching PBS distort history and embellish socialism via a retelling of Ken Burns’ old dust bowl documentary. They are pulling out all the stops to make it as current to events and policy initiatives as possible. Fascinating in a “we need to defund this crap” kind of way.
Having read “The Roosevelt Myth” and seeing how dems are operating right now it confirms what we know about them. Fcae it, they are communists that won’t let us define them as such. Progressive, European socialists, whatever. They want to control people by any means necessary.
DanMan on May 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM
LOVELY picture of the Tetons :)
Jackalope on May 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM
National Park lands sure do make GREAT COLLATERAL for our debt!
Wouldn’t the Chinese love to get hold of some of the natural resources under the ground?
PappyD61 on May 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Why can’t I post links on here????
katy on May 1, 2013 at 6:39 PM
the Federal government should sell at least 90% of the land it holds. States hold too much land as well.
forest on May 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM
If you are trying to post CNN or CNBC links, HA has judged those sources unreliable and the whole post will be blocked.
slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM
New Mexico …..dopes are going for a land grab in Taos Co. . Believe me
they can’t manage any of the land they now ” own ” . But call it a National
Monument and the morons cheer . The locals don’t care ( they foul their
turf with trash galore ) not realizing that there are no tax $s for the county
in this grab . These are the good folks that write about how they can hear
their lettuce scream when cut it in their gardens .
Susanna Martinez R Gov. has injected a good bit of sanity in an otherwise
nuts state .
If only they could get the idea that cocktail hour doesn’t start at 11am !
Lucano on May 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM
That’s an interesting photo shot on the home page.
Cleombrotus on May 1, 2013 at 9:25 PM
I live just over the hill to the left of that cover photo. Just love it in the summer. Especially if summer comes on a weekend!
IdahoAl on May 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Thanks. It was a cbnc link
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
cnbc duh
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
FIFY, Erika.
There are *some* legitimate reasons, including military bases and ranges. And, I don’t mind a few national parks. One third of the land area of the US, though? Wow.
BINGO!
GWB on May 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM
The whole idea of these land grabs really frosts me !
Great piece Erika , wish it got more attention .
Lucano on May 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM