California high-speed rail funding could be in jeopardy

[n2doc]

The Legislature should not authorize the issuance of $2.7 billion in bonds to start building California's $98.5-billion bullet train project, a state-appointed review panel says in a key report to be released later Tuesday.

The conclusion by the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group is a serious blow to the project as it is currently designed because state law specifically empowered the group to make recommendation before any serious money on the train could be spent.

Gov. Jerry Brown has said he intends to ask the Legislature this month to appropriate and sell bonds to raise billions of dollars to start construction of the project.

But that plan is facing an increasingly skeptical Legislature and general public. And now, lawmakers would have to disregard the recommendation of the very group it directed to guide it on the project if they decide to approve the bond issue.

Voters authorized $9 billion in bonds for the bullet train project in 2008, but the measure required that the Peer Review Group sign off on the feasibility and reasonableness of the plan to build the rail system before the state issues the bonds.

more

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/state-bonds.html

[bananas]

1. Governor and High Speed Rail Authority blast the review

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/01/peer-review-group-wants-to-delay-hsr-bond-funds-gov-brown-disagrees/

Peer Review Group Wants to Delay HSR Bond Funds – Gov. Brown Disagrees

<snip>

To which Governor Jerry Brown responded: that doesn’t change a damn thing. As reported by KQED’s John Myers, Brown’s office said the report’s concerns “are not new or compelling enough” to stop the project now.

<snip>

Overall, the Authority contended, the Peer Review Group erred in its report particularly by not having any consultation with the Authority about these issues:

While some of the recommendations in the Peer Review Group report merit consideration, by and large this report is deeply flawed, in some areas misleading and its conclusions are unfounded.

Unfortunately, many of the most egregious errors and unsupported assertions would have been avoided with even minimal consultation with the CHSRA. Although some high-speed rail experience exists among Peer Review Panel members this report suffers from a lack of appreciation of how high speed rail systems have been constructed throughout the world, makes unrealistic and unsubstantiated assumptions about private sector involvement in such systems and ignores or misconstrues the legal requirements that govern the construction of the high speed rail program in California.

In recommending against proceeding with the high speed rail development “at this time,” the Report ignores many components of the CHRSA’s recent Draft Business Plan and attempts to promulgate a new standard of project feasibility that is inconsistent with national funding of transportation projects.

<snip>

Along with Governor Brown, other HSR supporters quickly fired back at the report. The California Labor Federation offered this criticism:

Today’s Peer Review Panel report on the California high-speed rail project misses the mark. With California facing a jobs crisis and an urgency to upgrade our failing transportation infrastructure, further delay in breaking ground on high-speed rail is neither prudent nor responsible.

Any project that’s the size and scope of high-speed rail is bound to encounter difficulties along the way. But rather than working to implement the vision of high-speed rail, the panel suggests derailing the project at a critical stage, which would put billions in federal funding at risk. That’s not a viable solution for California.

<snip>

There’s no doubt this report will be used by HSR critics in Sacramento to argue against spending the bond money. But they’ll have to fight Governor Brown, President Obama, California’s Democratic Congressional delegation, and the California Labor Federation. In an election year, with many legislators running in unfamiliar and unsafe districts in a top-two primary, the support of all those figures (and the campaign contributions of the Labor Fed) will matter more than ever.

<snip>