Lawmakers weighing the fate of a bullet train linking California's major cities agree that the state is too financially strapped to ask voters in November to approve a $9.95 billion construction bond.

But they have different ideas about when - or whether - they should put it back on the ballot, igniting debate that puts in limbo the $33 billion rail line scheduled to slice through the San Joaquin Valley.

Legislators have introduced four bills removing the bond from this year's ballot - a move Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for in his 2004-05 budget proposal.
Two bills would postpone the bond vote until 2006, one would wait until 2010, and another would ax it, killing the project that promises to create jobs and ease traffic congestion in a state with a booming population. The bills need two-thirds legislative approval.

In 2002, a bill by then-state Sen. Jim Costa of Fresno put the bond on the 2004 ballot to help fund the rail system's first phase. Costa, a Democrat who is running for the 20th Congressional District seat, said he favors 2006 if the bond is moved off this year's ballot.

Costa said he has talked with legislative leadership, but that "my sense is there is further discussion that needs to take place."

Observers say lawmakers are more likely to put off than get rid of the bond. Delaying it, though, could mean the state would have to redo costly environmental studies and pay more for land, labor and the trains themselves.

"One issue is if you move it too far off, does all the work done become stale?" asked Sen. Kevin Murray, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. Murray's bill, SB 1169, would put the bond on the 2006 ballot.

"My preference is to move it off to the shortest time possible, and if we're still not in the fiscal place to do it, then postpone it" again, said Murray, a Los Angeles Democrat.

Schwarzenegger believes that, given the state's financial situation, this is not the time for a high-speed rail bond, said the governor's spokesman, H.D. Palmer.

But Schwarzenegger has not publicly said when or whether he wants to put the bond back on the ballot. Lawmakers looking for guidance want his input.

"The governor needs to weigh in here," said Sen. Dean Florez, a Shafter Democrat who sits on the Transportation Committee. "He's the one who put it in the budget. Thus far, he has been a nonparticipant."

Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the High-Speed Rail Authority, said not having a date for voters to decide on the bond creates some uncertainty, but it won't immediately affect planning for the project. Schwarzenegger included about $1 million in his budget proposal to fund the authority.

The authority is in charge of planning, designing, constructing and operating the system, and it carries out the requests of the governor and the Legislature.

"You have a governor who has just come in here. He's got multibillion-dollar deficits," Morshed said. "They have to have time to weigh their options" regarding high-speed rail.

Murray said it's not necessary to quickly set a bond date. "We certainly are not sold on 2006," he said. "The main issue is it needed to be postponed."

High-speed trains on the 700-mile system would carry as many as 68 million passengers a year by 2020, states a draft environmental impact report made public in January.

The system would be the first of its magnitude in the United States. In some places, trains could reach 220 mph, using technology that has been common for decades in Europe.

According to the report, a high-speed train could carry passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in about two hours and 30 minutes, and from Los Angeles to San Diego in slightly more than an hour.

Plans for the rail system have been in the works for more than 10 years.

According to Morshed, postponing the bond measure until 2006 would have "marginal" impact on the project because the bonds, under current law, would not be sold until 2006. The change would foster uncertainty among developers, investors and local government officials who are making plans around the rail project, Morshed said.

SB 1483 by Sen. Don Perata, an Oakland Democrat, also postpones the rail project until 2006.

Anything later than 2006, though, would have significant effects, Morshed said.

By 2010 - the year proposed by Assemblyman Russ Bogh in AB 2865 - environmental studies could be outdated because new housing and shopping centers could crop up along the proposed rail line.

Construction is supposed to start before 2010, but without money from the bond, tunnels, bridges and other infrastructure would be delayed, Morshed said.

"Each one of those delays would have an impact," he said. "Those delays put new uncertainties I can't predict."

Bogh, a Cherry Valley Republican, said he is working with state Department of Finance staffers. He said he chose 2010 because it is what the Schwarzenegger administration wants.

Palmer, the spokesman for the governor, could not confirm whether Schwarzenegger favors 2010.

Bogh said it likely will take more than two years for the economy to turn around, "Basically, the state can't afford it right now," he said.

Sen. Tom McClintock, long a critic of high-speed rail, said it is too expensive and questions whether people would ride it. His bill, SB 1256, would kill the bond.

"The ridership figures (planners) are generating are coming out of thin air, and they are being used to justify a project that by any rational measure is ludicrous on its face," said McClintock, a Thousand Oaks Republican who unsuccessfully ran for governor in the recall election. "It is the biggest boondoggle that has ever been proposed."

McClintock said he would rather use the money to add lanes to 665 miles of freeway in the state's most congested corridors.

"I would hate to see us continue to waste money on a system that is destined to ultimately collapse of its own cost," he said.

McClintock said skepticism over the high-speed rail system is growing in the Legislature. Indeed, lawmakers have scrutinized its cost and the likely choice of Pacheco Pass over Altamont Pass to link the Valley to the Bay Area.

Talk of scrapping the project unsettles Morshed, though he said he will do what he is instructed.

"In our view, it is absolutely essential," Morshed said.

"It is the best transportation solution for the state of California."