As a practical matter, that means the state needs to have $31 billion in solid funding for the project’s 300-mile initial operating segment. State law requires the segment to have firm financing in place before construction begins to make sure what’s built is operationally viable if future funding dries up.

Given what has been spent so far and the commitments the rail authority has already made with its $13 billion in state and federal funding for the project, the state has at most $6 billion on hand. Where is the other money coming from?

The state has no idea and no good options.

In the sequester era, federal funding for discretionary domestic spending is dwindling for far bigger priorities than a California-only pork project. Also, not just House Republicans but Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., opposes more California-only rail funding.

No private investors are forthcoming either because state law forbids operating subsidies, which rules out the revenue guarantees that investors demand as a condition of investment. (If those guarantees aren’t met, investors want taxpayer subsidies.)

Ho-hum: This too shall pass; move along, nothing to see here

That this $25 billion shortfall is daunting isn’t just my conclusion. It was also cited in the L.A. Times’ coverage of the ruling.

“The state rail agency created a funding plan, but it was an estimated $25 billion short of the amount needed to complete a first working section of the line.

“Kenny ruled that the state must rescind the plan and create a new one, a difficult task because the state High-Speed Rail Authority hasn’t identified sources of additional revenue to allocate to the project.”

So how did the Sacramento Bee editorial page deal with this crucial aspect of Judge Kenny’s bombshell ruling? By never mentioning the size of the funding shortfall and by implying it won’t be difficult for the state to deal with the unspecified shortfall. The Bee editorial says Kenny’s decisions merely …

“…will delay the issuance of voter-approved Proposition 1A bonds by months.

“Work funded with the federal grants will continue on the first 29-mile stretch of construction from northeast Madera to the south edge of Fresno. Jeff Morales, chief executive officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, has made it clear the project will move forward.

“The judge ruled in one case that the CSHRA has to ‘rescind its approval’ of the 2011 funding plan. [Rail authority CEO Jeff] Morales expects to have a new draft in the next few weeks that will identify the funding sources for the high-speed rail backbone in the Central Valley, connecting with BNSF tracks at each end – not just the first 29 miles.”

But where is the $25 billion coming from, Sac Bee editorial board? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

A reminder of history that’s more like a reminder of doom

Hilariously enough, the Bee editorial also makes an observation that is supposed to be reassuring for supporters of the project but is actually another reminder of why it is doomed:

“We all need to remember that no mega-projects are funded all at once. Morales points out that the last big highway project in California – the 210 in the Los Angeles area – was planned in the 1940s, commissioned in the 1950s and built in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The last segment opened in 2007.”

But this is not a normal “mega-project.” Under state law, the first 300 miles of the project must have solid funding established before construction can proceed. So it has to be essentially funded “all at once” — not piecemeal, like the 210. Does the Bee editorial page read the Bee front page?

Here’s still more evidence of the Bee’s obliviousness: Kenny first ruled the business plan was illegal on Aug. 16. The rail authority had nearly three months to come up with a legal business plan before the “remedies” hearing was held earlier this month. It couldn’t do so. Instead, the state was left to argue that it could still spend federal funds for now on moving the project forward.

But now the Bee would have us believe that the project will be back on track within “months” because suddenly Morales will be able to pinpoint the $25 billion he couldn’t from Aug. 16 to Nov. 8.

What in the world is that assumption based on? Does the Sac Bee editorial board have hallucinogens in its water cooler? The first time I read this editorial from start to finish, I was kind of stunned at its omissions. The second time I read it, I actually laughed out loud three times. Thanks for the good times, Bee board!

Now back to that $25 billion shortfall: Once again, Bee opiners, where is it coming from?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

“… it would be up to the state Legislature to step in if lawmakers believed the $68 billion funding plan does not comply with Proposition 1A, which authorized $10 billion in high-speed rail bonds, Deputy Attorney General Michele Inan said.

“‘The taxpayers are represented through the legislative process,’ Inan told Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny.

“Kenny ruled in August that the rail authority ‘abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law.’ He further said it had failed to identify “sources of funds that were more than merely theoretically possible.”

“Still, Inan argued that since the Legislature approved spending the money to get started on high-speed rail, only the Legislature can undo it or ask for an updated funding plan.”

LOL. Attorney General Kamala Harris appears determined to turn California into a banana republic in which court rulings and state laws matter only if the Legislature agrees that they matter. Or at least to give herself political cover while the bullet train project falls apart.

And what does Sac Bee columnist Dan Morain think is news? What he sees as the backfiring of a petty, hypocritical attempt by Republican Congressman Jeff Denham to block high-speed rail by trying to make it subject to federal oversight:

“By sending the letter that led to the Surface Transportation Board’s involvement, Denham, who didn’t respond to my requests for an interview, managed to undermine his allies – or at least the enemies of his enemies – in the fight against the rail project.

“San Francisco Peninsula cities including Atherton and Palo Alto invoked the California Environmental Quality Act when they sued to block the train from running through their fancy towns. Now, the cities’ lawyers must convince the appellate court that the state law still applies.”

Apologist/attack dog for the Sacramento establishment

But does Morain put Denham’s by-any-means-necessary effort to block the bullet train in context? That going to extremes is justified when you are trying to block a boondoggle that was sold with lies in 2008, starting with the ballot language illegally written by the Legislature’s Democratic leaders?

Nah. You lecture  the Republican for hypocrisy.

And you only giving passing mention to the fact the state government has been kneecapped by a Sacramento judge for breaking the law on the same project.

It appears Dan Morain is positioning himself to succeed George Skelton as all-purpose apologist, attack dog and stenographer for the Sacramento political-media establishment.

Thank God for Dan Borenstein. Here’s the opening part of his sharp editorial for the Bay Area News Group:

Ignoring the week’s real news

“Finally, a judge officially recognizes what has been obvious for years: The bullet train empress has no clothes — or, in this case, money.

“Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny’s 16-page ruling issued Friday exposes the fraud perpetuated by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

“Voters set restrictions in 2008 when they supported linking major metropolitan areas of the state: Money must be secured and environmental reviews completed before the authority authorizes expenditures.

“Kenny concludes it failed to clear either hurdle. The authority ‘abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law.’

“For years now, Gov. Jerry Brown and his puppet leading the authority board, Dan Richard, have been perpetrating a bait-and-switch on Californians.”

Earth to Dan Morain: Isn’t this, yunno, news? Isn’t this the big development on the bullet-train front?

Duh. Of course it is. But Morain will get more attaboys from his media and political buddies for going after alleged GOP hypocrisy. If his goal is to be George Skelton Jr., he’s well on his way.

But back to Musk and his new technology. Hilariously enough, it’s inspired by California’s epic public-works boondoggle:

“In an extensive analysis published on the website Motherboard, Mr Gardi concluded: ‘I believe that Hyperloop is merely a modern day version of the pneumatic tubes used in banks, stores, and industry to move money and small items over long distances or to other floors of a building.’ …”

“Mr Musk’s intended location for the first Hyperloop is California, between Los Angeles and San Francisco. His motivation for the project came from disillusionment with the Golden State’s high speed rail project, which has been dubbed the ‘bullet train to nowhere’ after a series of setbacks.”

Bullet train ‘actually worse than taking the plane’

“He believes the Hyperloop could be built for a tenth of the cost and deliver passengers between the two cities in just 30 minutes, compared to three hours for the bullet train.

“The bullet train is currently estimated to be costing $68 billion and may not be completed until 2028. It would reach top speeds of only around 130 mph. In a survey seven in 10 people said, if the train ever does run, they would ‘never or hardly ever’  use it anyway.

“In an internet conversation this week with Sir Richard Branson, Mr Musk said: ‘I originally started thinking about it when I read a thing about California’s high speed rail project, which was somewhat disappointing. It is actually worse than taking the plane. I get a little sad when things are not getting better in the future.'”

If Musk’s breakthrough really is transformative, at least the bullet-train fiasco had one upside.

By Chris Reed

When the Los Angeles Times broke the story in April that the California High-Speed Rail Authority had quietly changed the rules to de-emphasize the importance of technical competence among bidders for the first segment of the bullet train, new authority CEO Jeff Morales and board Chairman Dan Richard pushed back as hard as they could.

It was a huge story by any standard. Given the engineering challenges posed by the bullet train, the initial decision that only the three bidders judged the most skilled at engineering and project management be eligible made absolute sense. We’re not talking about building, oh, a bridge. We’re talking about building a super-fast train on sometimes difficult terrain.

But Morales and Richard insulted the LAT’s coverage, trashed a subsequent editorial that I wrote and pretended to hold the high ground, asserting the flap was much ado about nothing.

Why rail authority’s hardball flopped

It didn’t work. Most coverage last week of the authority’s decision to award the $985 million contract for construction of the initial 29-mile segment in the Central Valley to the Tutor Perini consortium highlighted the fact that Tutor Perini was judged the least qualified of the five bidders, but won out because it was the cheapest.

As I noted in a Sunday follow-up editorial, the problem with this approach is that Morales and Richard  …

” … have never given a persuasive explanation as to why the decision was made to de-emphasize engineering and project management competence without a public hearing and board approval. … Instead, they’ve launched a public-relations offensive, including a complaint about a critical U-T San Diego editorial that the authority said ignored the ‘careful and transparent development of its bidding process.’

“This claim would only be true if the authority had held a public hearing on the rule change. As such, it isn’t spin. It is myth.”

‘Careful and transparent’: Classic rail authority buncombe

As the editorial notes, this approach was no surprise. It’s what the rail authority does:

“The November 2008 proposition authorizing $9.95 billion in state bond funds for the project was sold to voters with grossly false claims about the project’s long-term cost, ridership and job creation. Voters were also told it was likely to win tens of billions of dollars from private investors — even though rail authority officials knew such investment would require ridership or revenue guarantees they couldn’t legally provide.

“The saga of Tutor Perini thus amounts to one more pathetic chapter in California’s bullet-train follies.”

Bullet-train beat reporters reject spin

And that’s how it was treated by the reporters who have done an increasingly good job covering the follies of the CHSRA laughed off the criticism. Consider this delicious lede by San Jose Mercury-News reporter Mike Rosenberg:

“SACRAMENTO — State bullet train leaders on Thursday approved the start of construction for California’s $69 billion high-speed rail line, choosing the cheapest but least qualified firm to build the first leg.”

“Cheapest but least qualified”! How reassuring!

I look forward to Morales’ and Richard’s next round of faux indignation over the coverage of the fiasco they are shepherding.

By Chris Reed

News that state Treasurer Bill Lockyer will retire when his current term expires in January 2015 has produced plenty of tributes to Lockyer’s smarts and tenacity, and plenty of pushback from people who say he’s just a part of the Democratic establishment that’s mismanaged the state since Pete Wilson left Sacramento in 1999.

I think the latter critique is pretty strong. Still, I did write a newspaper editorial endorsing him in 2006 that offered some faint praise.

“The Democratic candidate for treasurer, Bill Lockyer, has displayed a vicious partisan streak in his eight years as attorney general, using his powers to sandbag initiatives he doesn’t like and to file frivolous lawsuits solely to score political points with unions and environmentalists. In his previous job, as Senate president, he was the epitome of the pay-to-play Sacramento culture, famously blocking a law meant to keep criminals out of California casinos and card clubs after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the gambling industry.

“Incredibly enough, we have no choice but to endorse him. His Republican opponent, Board of Equalization member Claude Parrish, is simultaneously flippant, uninformed and unfocused. Lockyer may be the devil, but he’s a smart devil. Were Lockyer treasurer, it is incomprehensible that Californians might someday wake up to learn that the state had lost billions of dollars because he made complex financial decisions without due diligence. That is not the case with Parrish.

“We set out to give Lockyer the most grudging election endorsement in the history of the printed word. We hope we have achieved our goal.”

‘Puke politics’ call was one for the ages

Still, while Lockyer has for the most part played the role of loyal partisan, what he did in 2003 remains a high point in modern California politics. He denounced the “puke politics” of then-Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and later admitted to voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall.

That is the Lockyer I’d like to see over the next 19 months: someone who is brutally honest about his party. The New York Times reported in April that President Obama wishes he could go rogue in his speeches and tell the truth about the political world, as Warren Beatty did in 1998 as an unhinged, suicidal senator in the movie “Bulworth.” Lockyer could play that role with little of the downside that Obama would face for being honest about his fellow Dems. It’s not like he’s pushing a legislative agenda as California treasurer.

Lockyer could be true to his history by continuing to depict Republicans as heartless reactionaries, as he loves to do. But he could also point out that the CTA and CFT see public schools more as an adult jobs program than a way to help kids get ready for life. That affluent urban greens simply don’t care if heavy regulation leads to high unemployment. That touting “social justice” is a convenient veneer for a Democratic Party that cares far more about its share of the middle class and wealthy — public employees, trial lawyers, greens and socially liberal urban professionals — than about poor people.

And if Lockyer would go Bulworth on Jerry Brown — specifically Jerry Brown and the bullet train — that would be awesome.

C’mon, Mr. Treasurer: Tell the truth about the bullet train

California is on the brink of spending billions of dollars on a Central Valley bullet train link with no prospects of funding for the links that would actually reach the Bay Area and Los Angeles. The word for this is insane.

The gap between the self-image Brown cultivates himself of frugal, careful brainiac and the absurdity of his championing of the bullet train project is the size of the Grand Canyon.

C’mon, Bill! Candor time! Get back in your “puke politics” mode!

By Chris Reed

The Sacramento Bee’s editorial Friday lambasting House Republicans for opposing using borrowed federal money to build California’s bullet train was noteworthy for its tone. The Bee editorial board seems to be under the deluded impression that project advocates have the moral high ground.

“The Government Accountability Office injected a sense of realism into the high-speed rail debate, detailing in its March 28 report just how large infrastructure projects of this kind work. But the naysayers led by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, and Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, don’t seem to be listening. …

“A major issue, it turns out, is post-2010 congressional opposition. As the GAO notes, the Obama administration, as well as the governor, Legislature and voters of California, has committed funding to the project. But sustained congressional support for additional funds is ‘one of the biggest challenges to completing this project.’

“McCarthy was quick to prove the point. As soon as the report came out, he issued a statement that he was ‘developing legislation to stop more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from being wasted on California high-speed rail.’ Ditto for Denham.

“You have to wonder if they would have supported the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that authorized $25 billion over 10 years to construct the interstate highway system. You have to wonder, too, if they would have supported the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 authorizing bonds and grants of land to railroad companies to construct a transcontinental railroad.”

The Bee’s stunningly selective memory

You have to wonder if the Bee remembers that the bullet train was sold to state voters in 2008 with lies about cost, ridership, jobs created, environmental benefits — and that’s only for starters.

You have to wonder if the Bee remembers that the California High-Speed Rail Authority has never been able to comply with the state law ratified by voters in 2008 that requires a business plan that isn’t dependent on taxpayer subsidies to attract private investment. This has led the rail authority to stop even trying to get private investors — another lie to voters.

You have to wonder if the Bee remembers all the evidence that the bullet train will never meet another requirement of the 2008 state law: that the bullet train make it from downtown L.A. to downtown San Francisco in two hours and 40 minutes — another lie to voters.

If the Bee editorial board actually thinks the bullet train holds the moral high ground, that is shocking. In its own way, Friday’s editorial is as childish as the L.A. Times’ 2011 editorial that invoked “The Little Engine That Could” to describe the LAT editorial board’s optimism the project could be built.

By Chris Reed

There’s been quite a bit of good reporting done on the bullet-train fiasco. Mike Rosenberg of the San Jose Mercury-News and Lance Williams of California Watch jump to mind. But Ralph Vartabedian of the Los Angeles Times probably deserves top honors.

Vartabedian’s smart, nuanced beat reporting points discerning readers toward the truth — namely, that California’s project makes Boston’s Big Dig look like a work of efficient genius. The latest example was his piece this week on why and how some of the bullet train’s most ardent and longtime defenders have turned on the project. It’s full of interesting specifics that set up his future reporting on court fights over the project’s legality.

But it’s more than just this sort of sharp professionalism. Bullet train followers know all about Quentin Kopp’s misgivings and the lies and deceptions that have marked the project since well before it won $9.95 billion in bond seed money from state voters in 2008. Here’s what Vartabedian has done that is exceptional: His reporting has shown the bullet train fiasco is even worse than we imagined!

This is from his Jan. 27, 2013, piece, headlined “State has yet to buy any land for train”:

“Construction of California’s high-speed rail network is supposed to start in just six months, but the state hasn’t acquired a single acre along the route and faces what officials are calling a challenging schedule to assemble hundreds of parcels needed in the Central Valley.

“The complexity of getting federal, state and local regulatory approvals for the massive $68-billion project has already pushed back the start of construction to July from late last year. Even with that additional time, however, the state is facing a risk of not having the property to start major construction work near Fresno as now planned. …

“It hopes to begin making purchase offers for land in the next several weeks. But that’s only the first step in a convoluted legal process that will give farmers, businesses and homeowners leverage to delay the project by weeks, if not months, and drive up sales prices, legal experts say.

“One major stumbling block could be valuing agricultural land in a region where prices have been soaring, raising property owners’ expectations far above what the state expects to pay. …

“Delays in starting construction could set in motion a chain reaction of problems that would jeopardize the politically and financially sensitive timetable for building the $6-billion first leg of the system. …

“If the construction schedule slips, costs could grow and leave the state without enough money to complete the entire first segment. ..

“In addition to property, the rail authority still needs permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and approval by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, two more potential choke points that Morales says can be navigated.

Here’s an excerpt from “Rail line’s big dig,” the Nov. 13, 2012, piece by Vartabedian that outlines the project’s insane complexity:

“The sheer scale and scope of the bullet train’s push into Southern California, including traversing complex seismic hazards, would rival construction of the state’s massive freeway system, water transport networks and its port complexes. It is likely to be viewed in future decades as an engineering marvel — or a costly folly. ..

“The plan calls for bullet trains to shoot east from Bakersfield at 220 mph, climbing one of the steepest sustained high-speed rail inclines in the world. It would soar over canyons on viaducts as high as a 33-story skyscraper. The line would duck in and out of tunnels up to 500 feet below the rugged surface. It would cross more than half a dozen earthquake faults heading toward L.A.

“Tunneling machines as long as a football field will have to be jockeyed into mountain canyons to do the heavy, back-breaking work once left to Chinese laborers. New access roads and a corridor for high-voltage power lines will have to be carved through the Tehachapis to feed power-hungry trains. When completed and fully operational, the bullet train will need an estimated 2.7 million kilowatt hours of electricity each day — about a quarter of Hoover Dam’s average daily output. …

“One measure of the topographic challenge: Over that 141 miles from Bakersfield to Los Angeles, up to 59% of the track would run in tunnels or on viaducts, according to preliminary planning documents. …

“At this point, the rail authority estimates it will cost about $7.7 billion to build the 83 miles of rail from Bakersfield to Palmdale and about $12.5 billion to build the 58 miles of rail from Palmdale to Union Station. …

“Depending on the slope of the track, the tallest viaduct could be 200 to 330 feet off the ground.

“The same holds true for the segment through the San Gabriel Mountains, roughly following California 14.  …

“California’s bullet train will have to operate over some of the nation’s most seismically active terrain … . There are half a dozen faults between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, including the White Wolf and San Andreas, both capable of producing a 7.5 magnitude quake. Where high viaducts are near faults, engineers are considering reinforced concrete structures that would resist ground motion and have containment features to prevent a derailed bullet train from plunging to the ground … . At full speed, however, a bullet train would need four to five miles to make an emergency stop on level ground, and longer going downhill.”

I don’t know how anyone could read this without thinking about every other sentence, “The state of California is competent to pull this off?” Nor do I think anyone could read this and think the bullet train will only cost $68 billion. Triple that — at least.

Which brings us to the Los Angeles Times editorial page. According to Nexis, the last time it weighed in on the bullet train, in November 2011, here was the literally juvenile result:

 “It’s a gamble, and not one to be taken lightly. But gasoline isn’t going to get any cheaper in the future and the freeways aren’t going to get less clogged. We think California can find a way to get the train built. We think it can. We think it can….”

Yes, the L.A. Times editorial page editor actually invoked “The Little Engine That Could” in sickeningly cutesy fashion to stick up for this folly.

I bet, to invoke a Trent Dilferism, Ralph Vartabedian threw up in his mouth a little when he read that painfully childish and uninformed editorial.

By Chris Reed

When word came out Thursday night that a new PPIC poll showed the public was against the bullet train fiasco, I wasn’t surprised. But only 54 percent? Wow. Here’s John Myers’ account:

“The survey from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California finds virtually no change from last year in the public’s wariness of high speed rail and an $11.1 billion bond for water reliability projects. ….

“In the case of high speed rail, that’s especially noteworthy given the long-term cost of the project, now pegged at some $68 billion, was cut by almost a third last year.

“The new PPIC poll finds 54 percent of likely voters now oppose the bullet train project that’s being championed by Gov. Jerry Brown.  Last March, when the estimated cost was closer to $98 billion, 53 percent of likely voters were opposed.”

But even if the price tag was cut, how can this be rejected by only a little more than half of Californians?

It’s built on lies about ridership and cost and private investment. Its most ardent champion is now prepared to testify against it because he says it’s not really even a bullet train any more. It is an assault on federal taxpayers as well as state taxpayers.

Hearing that only 54 percent of Californians are against it is sort of like hearing in October 2001 that 54 percent of Americans were happy with our intelligence agencies.

In an interview with CalWatchdog contributor Chris Reed, KFI 640 AM’s John and Ken discussed the fiasco that is the California bullet-train project, which they call the “Browndoggle.”

The interview begins at the 5:35 p.m. point of their Friday show — about halfway through this podcast.

It focused on topics familiar to Cal Watchdog readers.

— The implications of federal belt-tightening for future funding from Congress.

— The indifference of state and federal regulators and legislators to the ways the California High-Speed Rail Authority is breaking not just promises but laws.

— The unrealistic hopes that the Obama administration has raised for state bullet-train fans about the prospects for massive new federal funding.

— The ideological cheerleading for the bullet train that one often sees on the pages of the state’s biggest newspapers.