Funding questions loom over high-speed rail's new plan

California High-Speed Rail Authority's new business plan struggles to find funding sources for first usable stretch of $68-billion line

Seeking to comply with a legislative requirement, the agency charged with building California's high-speed-rail system on Monday released an updated business plan that offers upgraded ridership projections, revised construction plans and very few answers on the critical question of how the system will be funded.

The business plan, which was a requirement of the appropriation bill the state legislature passed in 2012, serves as an upgrade to a plan that the rail authority submitted two years ago.

Though the 2012 plan alleviated some concerns in Palo Alto and along the Peninsula by scrapping the highly contentious proposal for a four-track system (with Caltrain on the outside tracks and high-speed rail inside) in favor of a more palatable two-track one (in which the two agencies share the same tracks on the Peninsula), the document was criticized by local officials, watchdogs and one Sacramento County judge for failing to disclose how the California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to pay for the first usable stretch of the $68-billion line.

Known as the "initial operating section," this portion of the line would stretch from Merced to San Fernando Valley and would cost about $31 billion, according to the rail authority's new estimate.

The new plan, like the prior ones, leaves this question of how to pay for this segment largely open. Though it keeps the price estimate for the full line at $68 billion, the same as in the 2012 plan, and introduces a new funding mechanism supported by Gov. Jerry Brown, it fails to account for more than $20 billion in funding that the first segment needs and doesn't yet have.

So far, the rail authority has roughly $6 billion committed to constructing the first portion of the line, a 29-mile stretch between Madera and Fresno that would not have any actual trains.

The agency's failure to identify funding sources for the usable segment prompted Judge Michael Kenny to conclude in November that the rail authority acted in violation of Proposition 1A, the $9.95 billion bond voters approved for the rail system in 2008. Kenny ordered that the rail authority rescind its business plan.

In a separate ruling, he also denied the rail authority's request to validate $8 billion in bond expenditures, saying in his ruling that he was not convinced by the process in which state officials vetted the rail authority's request for funding.

The rail authority's business plan is unlikely to satisfy Kenny's concern. Though it includes upgraded methodology for calculating ridership and revenue projections and remains as optimistic as ever about the rail line's financial viability, it provides only the faintest indication of where the $20 billion would come from.

The agency, which in late January appealed Kenny's ruling, is preparing to use $3.3 billion in committed federal funds and about $7 billion in Proposition 1A funds, of which $4.2 million has already been allocated. This leaves a $21-billion budget hole that the rail authority hopes to fill with private investments that have yet to materialize and proceeds from the state's cap-and-trade program, which are included in Brown's proposed budget but have yet to be approved by the Legislature.

Even if the cap-and-trade proceeds are ultimately allocated for the rail project, the $250 million that Brown proposed to dedicate to high-speed rail would come nowhere near filling the chasm between the how much the project has for the first segment and how much it would need. Yet the new business plan argues that the ongoing commitment of these funds is "important in several key respects, both for enhanced transportation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through electrified train service."

The rail authority also expects this new funding source to bring in private investment, a key component of all prior business plans. The new business plan states that the commitment of state funding will "allow the Authority to leverage both public and private financing and, depending on the level of commitment, potentially finance the completion of the IOS."

The 2014 business plan also includes an expanded section on risk and new methodology for calculating risk through a simulation tool called the Monte Carlo risk analysis. The technique used in the 2014 plan, is "fundamentally different from that used in 2012, and represents a much more comprehensive methodology."

The result, however, is pretty much the same. Once again, the business plan argues that the system will be financially viable and "will not require an operating subsidy, consistent with other systems around the world."

The ridership forecast estimates that 10.4 million passengers will ride the rail system in 2025 under the "medium" scenario and that the number will gradually increase over the years, reaching 38.5 million riders in 2060. The business plan notes that the updated numbers how a higher ridership than previously projected, "on average, approximately 25% higher in the Medium scenario."

Projected farebox revenues follow a similarly upward track, gradually rising from $801 million in 2025 to $7.9 billion in 2050. Overall revenues are lower in this plan than in the 2012 version largely because riders are expected to take shorter trips than was previously projected. Even so, the plan predicts that the system would be financially feasible.

In a statement, rail authority CEO Jeff Morales said the new plan maintains the "core elements" of the 2012 version, "a better, faster and cheaper high-speed rail that forms the backbone of a statewide rail modernization program."

"The updated forecasts and analyses continue to show that, as the system develops over time, it will generate financial value through positive net operating cash flow and attract private investment," Morales said.

The plan is still in draft form. Anyone wishing to comment on the document can fill out an online form on the business plan website or email


Like this comment
Posted by Dude
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Feb 11, 2014 at 8:23 am

Liberal payoff to the Union. Nothing else as the stretch of track has no value once built.

Like this comment
Posted by Julia
a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2014 at 9:03 am

Please people wake up and smell the corruption mentality.

NOTHING BUT A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY. WOW...A railroad to Southern California. We really do not need this crazy project.

This is nothing more than the wet dreams of Disneyland and Fantasy-Land lovers.

But I know those crazy non-native California people will vote for the train to no where.

Thanks and I hope you are listening, Julia Pardini from Alamo

Like this comment
Posted by Chemist
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 11, 2014 at 9:49 am

Imagine what $68,000,000,000 could do to alleviate people's problems if it were still in people's pockets.

Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2014 at 10:39 am

Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm

(Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.) And what is the high-speed rail system to remote desert areas supposed to be for? Don't you see the handwriting on the wall? But you and the rest of the Sheeple keep voting in Brown and Obama and the rest of the socialists who want to eliminate the real job creators in this country. It's about time we started standing up for the freedoms of wealthy people in this country. Face it, America. Before it's too late.

Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm

Brown? How have you come to believe that I could possibly have voted for Governor Brown...duh...?

Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 12, 2014 at 8:01 am

I was restoring my post from above.

I thought "Julia Pardini" was serious. I was pointing out to everyone who might not get it that she is joking. The remark "This is nothing more than the wet dreams of Disneyland and Fantasy-Land lovers." says it all.

Like this comment
Posted by Citizen
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 12, 2014 at 8:50 am

Fund it from the Browns' (Willie and Moonbeam) pension payments!!

Like this comment
Posted by Can You Spell Bankruptcy?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 12, 2014 at 9:42 am

This is going to be the biggest construction boondoggle in the history of the United States. It will make the notorious Boston Big Dig (billions siphoned off into union, organized crime, and politicians pockets) look like penny ante. Three of Union Consigliore Moonbeam Brown's huge boondoggles will in all likelihood bankrupt California.
1) The Bullet Train
2) The Twin Tunnels
3) The billions that Consigliore Moonbeam Brown and the Legislature siphoned off from the CalPers and CalSTRS retirement funds and have not paid back. California taxpayers are on the hook for those billions and bankruptcy will not get them off the hook for this one.

Californians are completely insane if they reelect Consigliore Moonbeam Brown as Governor, or elect another union consigliore. Same goes if they reelect any of the current spendaholic loons in the Legislature.

Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 13, 2014 at 1:47 pm

I must admit that if there is ever a high speed rail I will ride it at least once.

Riding trains is much more popular in Europe that in the USA. It's also more entertaining than riding a bus...duh...

i wonder how come Americans complain about trains so much?

American are too spoiled.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 6 comments | 644 views

Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 24 comments | 513 views

Time for new collaboration between city and school district
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 441 views