Faster than a speeding bullet train, the cost of the state's massive high-speed rail project has zoomed to nearly $100 billion -- triple the estimate given to voters and more than enough to run the entire state government for a year.
What's more, bullet trains won't be up and running until at least 2033, much later than the original estimate of 2020, although that depends on the state finding the remaining 90 percent of the funds needed to complete the plan.
The new figures come from a final business plan to be unveiled by the California High-Speed Rail Authority on Tuesday, though some of the details were leaked to the media, including this newspaper, on Monday. Officials at the rail authority did not respond to repeated requests for comment Monday.
Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday was expected to endorse the long-awaited plan, the first major update to the project in two years and the last before the federal deadline to begin construction next year. But state legislators, who were already skeptical, will tear through the plan starting Tuesday before deciding whether to start building, or to kill the project.
The new business plan pegs the price tag at $98.5 billion, accounting for inflation -- more than double the estimate of $42.6 billion from two years ago, when it was already the priciest public works development in the nation. It's a little less than triple the estimate of $33.6 billion voters were told when they approved the project
in 2008. By comparison, the total state budget this year is $86 billion.Costly construction
Much of the cost increase is due to the increased time of construction.
"We don't have anywhere to get that kind of money," said Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, a Southern California Republican who has led the charge against the project. "I don't think there's any way you can do any part of this and keep the promise that was made to the taxpayers and (the voters). It just doesn't make any sense at all."
With the Golden State nearly broke, it now plans to secure funding largely by borrowing more, the Associated Press reported, though specifics were unclear. About 20 percent would come from the private sector.
Until now, the state had been relying on more than $15 billion from the federal government, $10 billion from private investors and $5 billion from local governments. But the state hadn't gotten any closer to raising the money in the three years since voters approved the plan.
The bullet train project, which would link San Francisco and Los Angeles with the nation's first high-speed rail line, has seemed to be a dream for job-hungry politicians, unions and business groups.
Like Brown, the mayors of San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles are also in favor, saying it is pivotal to start quickly and create jobs by taking advantage of a $2.2 billion federal grant that would expire next year.
Honest numbers?
Supporters still think the funding can be raised.
"Everyone knew (the cost) was going to be higher because they're in this process now of actually designing the project," said Rod Diridon, a former board member for the rail authority. "It's just a matter of time" for them to find the money.
But a large and vocal group of skeptics, including most nonpartisan groups, have regularly blasted the project as too expensive, adding the funding plans and ridership estimates are too optimistic. The updated figures are likely to add more fuel to the fire.
Already, as news leaked Monday, lawmakers said they need to be convinced that the project would churn a profit and that much of the funding for construction would come from outside the state budget.
"If those are honest numbers -- and we still need to check that -- it certainly is a higher number than expected," for cost, said Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo. "That certainly is a lot." The decision to start construction is no cinch.
If they kill the project, the state loses the huge federal grant that promises to create temporary construction jobs. But support would require them to spend $6.3 billion, split between state and federal funds, to build a stretch of track that would not be long enough to support bullet train service.
No comments:
Post a Comment