Doubts on HSR dollars

California”™s efforts to create a $45 billion bullet train while relying on matching federal funding is “an immense financial risk,” according to a panel ”“ even as Connecticut scrapes around for additional federal funding to support its own high-speed rail project.

After Florida turned down $2 billion in funding for high-speed rail, citing cost concerns, Connecticut sought to tap that money to fully fund its own high-speed line linking New Haven and Hartford, but came away with just $30 million. Illinois this month received $186 million of the money allotted for Florida.

In November, Congress refused to authorize another $8 billion in funding sought by the Obama administration to support high-speed rail projects nationally, leaving open the possibility that more states could table projects and potentially free up additional funding for Connecticut.

The Connecticut project envisions a train traveling at 110 mph running every 30 minutes during peak commuting times, running north to Springfield, Mass. Some in Fairfield County have criticized the plan as the “train to nowhere,” saying any state funding to support rail should be spent on Fairfield County”™s proven lines that feed into New York City. In December, the state opened a new station in Fairfield and this month broke ground on a station to serve Westbrook.

Connecticut is focusing 2012 on design and permitting work as it aims for a launch of high-speed rail service in 2016.

In laying the rails for its far-larger and faster system stretching from Sacramento to San Diego, legislators created both a California High-Speed Rail Authority as well as a small peer-review committee to serve as an independent voice on the project.

The peer-review group issued its warning in early January, saying the authority”™s plan to push ahead with the project without stable long-term funding in place is a “fundamental flaw” in the program.

“Without committed funds, a mega-project of this nature could be forced to halt construction for many years before additional funding could be obtained,” the panel wrote. “There will be no private sector interest in the project until the full public role is defined and funded, which means that significant private funding will not be available for many years.”

In a response, the California High-Speed Rail Authority termed “deeply flawed” the peer group”™s assumptions, arguing the state will be able to draw private industry financiers to the project as it proceeds.

Connecticut could consider a bill to encourage such public-private partnerships in major infrastructure projects in the legislative session that launches next month, but has not proposed such a financing mechanism for its plan.