|Page (1) of 1 - 11/01/11||email article||print page|
Plan says total California high-speed rail system to cost $98 billion but will make money
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) ' A business plan being released Tuesday gives the most detailed look to date at California's ambitious plan to link its major cities by high-speed rail, projecting the cost has ballooned to nearly $100 billion over 20 years, accounting for inflation.
The daunting figure may cause sticker shock even for the most ardent supporters of the project.
The business plan comes after Gov. Jerry Brown appointed two new members to California's high-speed rail commission and asked them to take a hard look at the proposal and assess its viability. They concluded the project is doable, if built in phases, but the cost will be more than double the original projection.
"The good news is the numbers are more realistic; the bad news is they may well be beyond reach," said state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto.
A copy of the report reviewed by The Associated Press shows the estimated cost at $98.5 billion if the route between San Francisco and Anaheim is completed in 2033. The plan assumes private investment will account for roughly 20 percent of the total cost, with much of the rest coming from additional public borrowing.
"This is not a promotional document. This is not a political document. This is a business plan," said Dan Richard, one of Brown's two appointees who spent 12 years on the board of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system.
The initial estimate to build the system when voters approved bond funding for it in 2008 was $43 billion. In non-adjusted, 2010 dollars that amount is now $65.4 billion, showing the costs have risen significantly.
The plan also says the system would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies.
It also calls for retaining the most controversial aspect of the proposed rail line ' starting construction in the Central Valley. Critics want to start in more populated areas of Southern or Northern California in case money runs out before the full system is finished, which they worry would create a "train to nowhere."
But $3.5 billion in federal funding is contingent upon the Central Valley route, and construction must begin before October 2012. That does not leave enough time for new engineering proposals and environmental reviews to be conducted elsewhere, the plan says.
The new business plan says the system will be built in sections than can operate independently and make money, even if no more track were ever built, Richard said. Planners hope each new section will generate momentum ' and private investment ' to complete subsequent sections.
The business plan also says the high-speed rail system will use existing rail lines to carry passengers on the final legs into San Francisco and the Los Angeles basin. Doing so instead of building new high-speed lines not only saves money but makes the project more politically palatable by reducing neighborhood objections.
The plan is being released at a politically sensitive time for the rail project.
Governors and lawmakers in several other states have been backing away from costly high-speed rail plans because of ongoing state budget deficits caused by the recession. Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio all pulled back on their rail plans, leading the Obama administration to turn over those states' share of federal money to California.
California voters and the Obama administration already have committed nearly $13 billion to the state's high-speed rail project, but the plan has faced increasing scrutiny about whether it will ever become reality.
The new business plan said it offers a more realistic cost estimate based on inflation over 20 years and estimates as much as $20 billion in private financing. Richard said it "will be a true public-private partnership."
The plan also calls for the rail segments to be phased in over several years, as is the case with other high-speed rail projects around the world. If the segments are built faster, the cost would decrease, the report said.
"Importantly, the phased approach means that decisions made today won't tie the state's hands tomorrow," the report states.
Even under the most conservative ridership projections, the report said the rail system would have a net operating profit.
It pegs ridership at anywhere from 7.4 million to 10.8 million riders by 2025 for an initial southbound phase. Even at low ridership projections, the project would have a net operating profit of $352 million a year, the report said.
The average ticket between San Francisco and Los Angeles would cost $81 in non-adjusted dollars, with express trains completing the trip in less than three hours.
Under the revised business plan, initial construction would start with a $5.2 billion "spine" from Fresno to Bakersfield to be completed in 2017. The line would then be extended further north or south ' from Merced to Palmdale, in the Los Angeles basin, or from Bakersfield to San Jose.
The first 130-mile segment would create about 100,000 jobs in the hard-hit Central Valley, according to the report. Building the entire system would generate about 1 million jobs.
The report notes that while the $98.5 billion tab seems high, California's growing population would otherwise require about $170 billion in new infrastructure, such as freeways and airport runways.
Brown said in August that he still supports the plan to link San Francisco with Los Angeles and Anaheim by 2020, but his Department of Finance is expected to review the proposal in detail before he signs off.
In a report issued last July, a peer-review committee created as part of the 2008 ballot measure that approved $9 billion in bonds said later phases of the rail project rely almost entirely on federal, state and local money that might never materialize. That poses a risk that whatever is started will not be finished and might be of little use to most California residents, that review said.
The Legislature, which returns in January, must approve the proposal, along with Brown.
Associated Press writer Don Thompson contributed to this report.