There’s concern that local, state or federal subsidies would be needed as projected ticket prices between L.A. and San Francisco have almost doubled. And building costs for the first phase have grown. Despite a new $2.25-billion infusion of federal economic stimulus funding, there are intensifying concerns — even among some high-speed rail supporters — that California’s proposed bullet train may not deliver on the financial and ridership promises made to win voter backing in 2008.

Estimates of ticket prices between Los Angeles and San Francisco have nearly doubled in the project’s latest business plan, pushing ridership projections down sharply and prompting new skepticism about data underpinning the entire project.

“This just smells funny,” said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), a supporter of high-speed rail and chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

New inflation-adjusted construction figures show that outlays needed to build the first 520-mile phase of the system have climbed more than 25%, from $33.6 billion to $42.6 billion.

And some government watchdogs are concerned that a linchpin commitment to taxpayers in the bullet train’s financing measure — that no local, state or federal subsidies would be required to keep the trains operating — may be giving way.

High-speed rail planners recently advised state lawmakers that attracting billions in crucial private financing will probably require government backing of future cash flow. “Without some form of revenue guarantee from the public sector, it is unlikely that private investment will occur at [the planned] level until demand for California high-speed rail is proven,” project planners wrote in December.

That is feeding fears that a larger state commitment, beyond the $9 billion in construction bonds approved by voters, could be sought to complete the 800-mile project. “To now put in that we have to [give] some kind of revenue guarantee . . . is totally unacceptable,” Lowenthal said. “That’s not what we agreed to.”

Financial risks and planning adjustments are inevitable in such a massive project, say officials with the California High-Speed Rail Authority. They insist that significant progress is being made, that there is cause for optimism and that they are keeping their commitments to voters. Opportunities for capturing more federal dollars are greater than ever, they say, because President Obama supports high-speed rail.

“The project is moving forward, very much,” said Mehdi Morshed, the agency’s executive director.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a coalition of business, labor and political leaders argue that the project is ahead of others in the United States and will provide enormous benefits in job creation, congestion relief and environmental improvements.

Tying San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco together with European-style 200-mph trains has been a long-stalled dream for many. The prospect that construction could actually begin has intensified scrutiny of financial, ridership and route issues.

“I think the numbers should be scrubbed,” said authority board member Richard Katz, adding that doing so could help the project.

Jeff Barker, the agency’s deputy director, said the latest business plan fueled confusion about a revenue guarantee.

“We didn’t do a good job of explaining that,” he said. The system is being designed to operate without a taxpayer subsidy, and that will be clarified in a new, as-yet unavailable report, he said.

But Morshed, who is stepping down next month, reiterated that some guarantee, probably from the federal government, may be needed to ensure that cash flow can repay front-end construction investments by private parties. That is not uncommon in federally backed projects, he said, and would not violate the state’s ban on taxpayer operating subsidies.

Current plans call for up to $12 billion from private-sector investors, about $18 billion from the federal government and up to $5 billion from local agencies. New forecasts show an operating surplus topping $1 billion a few years after service begins.

But some analysts point out that almost all U.S. rail systems — and a number of foreign operations — have required large government loans or cash infusions to keep running.

Under the new scenario, one-way fares between L.A. and San Francisco rise from $55 to $105, closer to the cost of an airline ticket. The change shows healthier surplus revenue, which may appeal to private investors. But estimated ridership falls by about one-third, to about 40 million annual boarders in 2030.

Some transit advocates say predictions of private participation aren’t realistic. “A lot of it’s still magical thinking,” said Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition.

Fare, ridership and financing projections should be viewed as fluid and subject to revision based on changing conditions and assumptions, high-speed rail officials say. But revised ridership estimates have heightened suspicions about the projections’ reliability. Some smaller cities, like Gilroy, Merced and Bakersfield, show numbers of nonlocal trips equal to or greater than Los Angeles. “We’ve never understood their models,” said Lowenthal, whose panel is delving deeper into the projections.

A recent federal Government Accountability Office study found that rail cost and patronage projections around the world, including on some high-speed lines, tended to be overly optimistic, making it difficult to gauge the financial viability of projects. Limited federal money may be available for several competing projects, the report adds.

Such warnings underscore what some see as the mixed blessing of the recent windfall of federal dollars. To help create jobs, California is supposed to break ground in two years.

The goal is to start Los Angeles, Bay Area and Central Valley segments about the same time. But the backhoes would be digging before officials know how much future federal and private funding will be available to connect the system, officials say.

Conflicts are brewing in Southern California as planners step up efforts to squeeze trenches, viaducts and extra tracks into a crowded rail corridor cutting across the region. Problems remain over how the bullet train will pass through Los Angeles’ Union Station transportation complex. Existing buildings, freeways, rail lines and overpasses around the station make it an extremely tight fit.

In Buena Park, city officials recently learned that part of a new award-winning transit-oriented residential project tied into the city’s 3-year-old Metrolink station may have to be ripped out.

A high-speed rail representative told local officials, “We either take the condominiums or we take your station,” recalled Councilman Art Brown, who has generally supported the bullet train. Planners are reexamining the issue, but it remains unresolved.

Katz, who also serves as a Los Angeles County transit official, wants a review to ensure that the L.A.-to-Anaheim leg, which has nearly doubled in cost, is based on actual demand and is efficiently designed to avoid duplication with existing rail services. “I think there are a number of legitimate questions that need to be raised,” he said.

Communication with cities is being improved, said Barker, the rail agency’s deputy director. “We’re playing catch-up,” he said. Overall, his quasi-independent agency, with a small staff and mostly contract planners, has produced results, he said.

But lawmakers are likely to overhaul the high-speed rail agency and move it more directly into state government, Lowenthal said. “It’s not going to be out there on its own,” he said.

Still, the $41 million project to widen Santa Barbara Boulevard from four to six lanes “is moving ahead well. We’re making good progress,” said Steve Neff, Cape Coral traffic engineer.

Neff said that the project is on schedule to be finished by the summer of 2011.

Construction began in early 2007 on Santa Barbara Boulevard from just north of Pine Island Road south to Gleason Parkway.

By the end of this week, the route should be six-laned from Kamal Parkway to Gleason Parkway, the southern end of the project, said Maricelle Venegas, project spokeswoman.

The other end of the project has also been finished and construction has begun at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Hancock Bridge Parkway just to the south, Venegas said.

For the people like her who have had to deal with the construction almost daily while driving around the city, the project “is a pain in the butt,” said Jean Nagy, who lives in southwest Cape Coral.

However, Nagy said she also feels that the project is necessary: “That road is packed with people,” Nagy said.

According to city traffic counts, as many as 20,000 vehicles drive through the construction area daily.

Nagy said that many people like her have learned to bypass the sections under construction.

“You can skip a lot of the construction by going onto Santa Barbara Place which runs parallel to Santa Barbara Boulevard between Nicholas Parkway and Trafalgar Parkway,” Nagy said.

“I can skip a lot of the construction by sneaking onto that street,” she said.

Neff said that along with the completion of Santa Barbara Boulevard, the project to widen Del Prado Boulevard North is on scheduled and should be finished by the spring of 2011. More than 18,000 vehicles travel along the route daily, according to city traffic counts.

The last phase of that $42 million project, from Diplomat Parkway south to Pine Island Road, is continuing, Neff said.

When finished, the city will have two major six-lane north-south routes “allowing for better traffic flow in Cape Coral,” Neff said.

Fusce ullamcorper dolor at augue. Etiam semper, est ut hendrerit tristique, purus orci sagittis velit, vitae mattis velit neque id tortor. Maecenas sed nunc id pede scelerisque malesuada. Morbi hendrerit mi vel tortor. Vivamus sed elit. Fusce nisi sem, feugiat sit amet, lacinia nec, pellentesque a, elit. In dictum felis. Aenean ut orci. Morbi nulla. Nulla consectetuer turpis ut ligula. Donec rutrum hendrerit tellus. Proin neque.

In vehicula malesuada odio. In egestas enim vitae eros elementum hendrerit. Etiam nunc velit, lobortis non, blandit ut, feugiat ornare, arcu. Aenean laoreet mauris at dolor. Aenean posuere, arcu vitae aliquet bibendum, odio turpis porta elit, vitae venenatis sem quam vitae ante. Fusce at dui et lorem scelerisque luctus. Donec eu lorem. Nunc vehicula sapien scelerisque neque. Fusce eu magna vel neque dignissim facilisis. Integer vehicula condimentum mi. Pellentesque mattis tortor. Nullam sed mi id lectus aliquet suscipit. Nulla molestie ligula vel massa.

Suspendisse vehicula sodales sem. Donec orci. Suspendisse sed felis. Aliquam lacus libero, ultrices id, porttitor nec, porttitor et, nisi. Vestibulum sed dui. Cras imperdiet nibh at purus. Fusce est dui, lobortis in, elementum et, volutpat vel, purus. Morbi tincidunt adipiscing orci. In ut erat et risus sodales tincidunt. Nulla et nibh in leo condimentum congue. Morbi dignissim massa eu augue. Nunc cursus imperdiet felis. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Fusce lacinia tincidunt dolor. Praesent fermentum magna ac augue. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.

In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Ut consequat urna eget sem fringilla fringilla. Vestibulum augue enim, rutrum sit amet, blandit et, venenatis in, metus. Nulla at nunc sit amet mi faucibus ullamcorper. Nullam ut dui. Praesent magna mi, euismod in, elementum sed, interdum sit amet, massa. Nunc sapien. Aenean vitae leo. Pellentesque tortor ligula, dictum at, dignissim vel, ultrices eu, urna. Nunc sem. In viverra. Curabitur massa velit, vehicula ut, convallis nec, cursus sit amet, purus. Mauris metus nulla, congue et, tincidunt non, placerat in, tortor. Nulla sagittis.

Occupational Licenses and Commercial Bonds

There are many licenses required by the State of California, and carry requirements for posting bonds. These bonds protect the public from the errors or unscrupulous practices of people working or doing business in California.California’s Immigration Consultant License and Bond is one example.The state’s Immigration Consultants Act demands that anyone who claims to be an immigration consultant must post a bond of $50,000 with the Secretary of State. This protects the clients of a consultant who acts in a fraudulent manner or does not provide what the client paid for. If the consultant has not posted a bond, he or she does not have a license to provide immigration services. In 2004, the California attorney general shut down three Sacramento immigration consultants’ offices for failure to post the bond. The clients would have had no recourse or protection if the company had taken their money and then shut their doors. Although there are exceptions—for licensed attorneys and non-profit consultants—these consultants were neither.Another example is the Talent Agency Bond, which is required at almost all levels of government. It ensures payment to the people it represents when the agency receives payment for the work, and covers damages due to fraud, deceit, misrepresentations or misstatements. In 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 184, a bill that increased bonding amounts for talent agencies. The last increase was in 1986, and only to $10,000. Governor Schwarzenegger increased the amount to $50,000. The reasoning was that there are often many people being represented by an agency, and if the agency fails to pay them, each individual share of the $10,000 bond was quite minimal.

Subdivision Bonds

Also known as Improvement Surety Bonds, these popular bonds in California, and usually required at the city and county levels. These guarantee installation, restoration, and/or preservation of the public structures (like streets, sidewalks, curbs, etc.) and property when owners of commercial or residential properties build improvements. In California, you likely will not get a building permit without posting a Subdivision Bond.

There are several layers of subdivision bonds in California. Monument bonds cover marking and surveying; tax bonds cover property taxes based on improved land values; performance bonds guarantee that the construction is in accordance with local regulations and will be completed on time; payment bonds ensure that the suppliers and workers will be paid; and maintenance bonds—usually good for one year—guarantee that the property owner will maintain the improvements at his or her expense.

The subdivision bond helps guarantee the creation and preservation of a city’s property and infrastructure, as well as its own improvements, while controlling community development. These common areas are crucial to functioning city utilities and offices, as well as beautification and parks. In this way, they are like a public works bond, although public works bonds are generally broader in scope and includes many other performance bonds that the subdivision bond doesn’t.