Unlikely source to save high-speed rail

When Donald Trump was elected president, Gov. Jerry Brown made it clear that he was going to lead California’s “resistance” to the Trump agenda.

But resistance goes only so far when a political legacy is at stake, so Brown is now trying to enlist the new president’s support.

In his January State of the State address, Brown lamented that the “familiar signposts of our democracy – truth, civility, working together – have been obscured or swept aside” by the Trump election.

Yet within about a month, he was asking Trump “for help on the California bullet train,” the Los Angeles Times recently reported. Brown sent a letter to Trump in February soliciting his cooperation on several infrastructure projects, including the high-speed train that Brown is hoping will be his most lasting legacy.

“In light of your commitment to rebuilding America’s infrastructure … I am hereby submitting 10 high-priority projects in need of expedited environmental review,” Brown wrote.

Several of the projects are indeed legitimate needs. Too many roads in this state are overdue for repair and renovation. But to include high-speed rail on his list of demands is – yes, let’s use that cliché since we’re talking about infrastructure – a bridge too far.

The California “bullet” train is an infrastructure boondoggle without match. It has been pitched as a modern wonder that will hustle passengers between San Francisco and Southern California in fewer than three hours.

But it will cost much more than projected – which should be expected for any government project – while delivering results far short of those promised.

Here in the Santa Clarita Valley, residents are all too familiar with the ongoing, heavy-handed and non-responsive tactics of state officials trying to push the bullet train’s route through communities planned and developed with no accommodation for the costly afterthought.

Initially, we were told the rail would cost $33 billion, with $9.5 billion from state-issued bonds and the balance from federal and private sources. This is the arrangement that voters approved in 2008 through Proposition 1A.

About a year later, though, the price tag increased to $43 billion. By 2011 the estimate ranged from $98.5 billion to $117 billion.

A change in plans dropped the cost to $68 billion in 2012. A year ago, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office looked at the project’s 2016 business plan and estimated the cost to actually be $64 billion.

Most recently, the Federal Railroad Administration’s risk analysis concluded that the costs of bridges, viaducts, trenches, and track in the section between Merced to Shafter would be between $9.5 billion and $10 billion, rather than the $6.4 billion originally budgeted.

That’s a cost overrun of as much as $3.6 billion on a roughly 120-mile stretch of an 800-mile system that will, if built, eventually wind from Sacramento to San Diego.

What if every 120 miles comes with a $3.6 billion overrun? And don’t forget, building this segment was supposed to be the smoothest part of the project, so no one should be surprised if costs keep mounting as construction obstacles grow.

But it’s all going to be OK once passengers are paying bargain fares to barrel up and down the rails at 220 miles per hour, right? Expect those boasting points turn out to be more imagination than tangible facts.

First, the distorted travel times: A 2013 Reason Foundation report said the fastest non-stop service between San Francisco and Los Angeles over the first phase of the project “will most likely be in the range of 3:50 to 4:40, compared to the often-repeated claim of 2:40.”

Slower times will make the train less attractive as a transportation option. Instead of the system carrying from a projected 65.5 million to 96.5 million intercity riders a year, true ridership will be between 23.4 million and 31.1 million, according to an earlier Reason report.

When the lower ridership causes revenue problems, officials will surely reach for taxpayers’ wallets for subsidies.

Second, fares will be far less reasonable than originally forecast. Voters were told in 2008 that patrons would pay $50 to ride between San Francisco and Los Angeles. But just as construction costs keep growing, fare estimates have increased, with the most recent from the 2016 business plan climbing to $89 for that trip.

As asked, Trump should expedite environmental review of the seven road projects as well as repairs of the Oroville Dam spillway.

But he shouldn’t do the same for the high-speed rail, even if it means doing the right thing for the wrong (environmental rules) reason.

When the lower ridership causes revenue problems, officials will surely reach for taxpayers’ wallets for subsidies.