Here's one of those articles that really raises my hackles. It's by Lynn Schenk, a lifetime Board member of the CHSRA. No, not her lifetime; the lifetime of the CHSRA. 8 years. That's too long.
On the other hand, that's long enough to learn a great deal about high-speed rail. So, I can't accuse her of ignorance. Therefore I will accuse her of gross intentional indifference to the facts.
She justifies HSR because San Diego's airport is over-used. That's absurd. Yes, San Diego should have far superior transit, rail included, especially along the LOSSAN rail corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego, which is the second most heavily used transit route in the US today.
But that's not what she is calling for. I can only assume she does understand this, that she knows better. But, it would appear that her political pride to be on the HSR Board has severely impaired her good judgement and common sense.
It’s not a question of whether we can afford high-speed rail in California, it’s a question of whether we can afford not to have it – especially in San Diego.
I find that statement outrageous. It's not a a question of whether we can afford HSR or not? Is that right, Ms. Schenk?
It's OK to suck California into even greater debt, debt without end, forever, to run a train up and down California that will cost untold billions more than currently estimated? A train that will carry far fewer riders than promised, with ticket costs that are far higher than promised, and at operating losses that California taxpayers must carry forever? Never mind those?
Oh, did I mention that the capital development debt for building this train in California will accrue to the interest costs of the bond issue and those will be an endless burden on taxpayers as well? See former CFO William Warren's detailed explanation of how that works.
I can't let go of her statement. ". . .especially in San Diego?" San Diego needs luxury high-speed rail access to San Francisco or what; it will drop into the ocean? People will riot in the streets? And this is so true that the costs of this train, to all American taxpayers, doesn't matter? We can't afford not to have it?
We can't afford not to have water and other fundamental utilities. We can't afford not to have an adequate education system for all our kids. But a fancy-pants railroad for rich people from southern to northern California we certainly can afford not to have!
Ms. Schenk is one of those believers that California will grow to 50 million by 2030. Based on what? Our powerful economic engine and enormously demanding labor market? Our swelling manufacturing capacity and oversupply of jobs?
She also mentions "the goods they need" as if that problem also will be solved by high-speed rail. That's too glib and wrong by far. Goods are being moved successfully in California by profitable freight rail carriers. That can be improved to be sure, but HSR has absolutely nothing to do with this. To the contrary; the freight carriers object to HSR as an intrusion and interference to their efficacy.
Ms. Schenk says that Californians will not have to bear the costs of $43 billion alone. That's right; all taxpayers in the US will have to cover the cost of the California HSR project even though most Americans will never ride on it. Is that the right thing to do, Ms. Schenk? I don't think so.
And, she's wrong about the $43 billion; it's going to be far, far more than that, and Californians will not be able to get away with a mere $10 billion, the amount of the Bond issue. It will cost hundreds of billions IN CALIFORNIA. Just read William Warren's analysis.
The's more in this article that deserves a response. Ms. Schenk cites the 1,100 "private sector" letters expressing interest in participation in this project. She wants us to believe that they are all desperate to give us money to build the train.
The reality is that those expressions of interest are interested in the money; that is, getting, not giving the money to the rail authority. They all want a piece of the action. If those bidders are so interested in making investments, where have they been? What are they waiting for? This is just one piece of the spin-doctoring mythology sustained by this fraudulent project and repeated here by Ms. Schenk.
Then, perhaps against better advice from her colleagues, Ms. Schenk gets into the ridership issue. Big mistake, Ms. Schenk.
No credible expert has ever said California’s ridership numbers are wrong; our experts say they’re reasonable – but the public has a right to be confident in those figures. A few months ago a peer review panel of experts from California and around the world looked at our ridership estimates. They found not incorrect conclusions, but that the firm we used didn’t document the process as fully as it could have. That is being fixed now.
For me, this is a "gotcha" opportunity. Ms.Schenk can only willfully mis-understand what's going on here. The CHSRA/Cambridge Systematics numbers are absolutely wrong. Dismissing the whole ridership issue by claiming that they are merely hypothetical models and therefore need not be correct, and by substituting "common sense" to contradict appropriate and honest research puts Ms. Schenk on the side of the devils, not angels.
Credible experts at the Berkeley Institute for Transportation Studies have indeed found the ridership numbers wrong. So has the CARRD group found those numbers wrong. So have other organizations who do statistical analysis found the rail authority numbers wrong.
No, it's not a matter of insufficient documentation. It's a matter of lying on the part of the CHSRA, and that's been going on since well before the 2008 elections, when the ridership number prediction was 117 million annually. Now it's below 40 million and still far, far too high. All of Amtrak in the US carries fewer than 24 million annually. 39 million is not only wrong; it's absurd!
Finally, Ms. Schenk says that Californians have demonstrated their support for HSR repeatedly. No, that's not the case. They supported it marginally during the 2008 election, based on ample false information. The California voters have made no subsequent demonstration of support. We will here categorically ignore all those push-poll studies sponsored by HSR promoters and supporters as illegitimate data sources.
One final point. Ms. Schenk is an attorney. She should know better. Her participation in the CHSRA decision-making process makes her equally culpable in the mismanagement and wrong doing that has been criticized by other state government agencies like the Legislative Analysts' Office, the Inspector General, the State Auditor and the CHSRA peer review committee, as well as the Senate Committee on Transportation.
I say this as one California resident and citizen to another: Ms. Schenk, shame on you.
===========================
California high-speed rail: It’s on track. Climb aboard!
BY LYNN SCHENK
SUNDAY, APRIL 3, 2011 AT MIDNIGHT
It’s not a question of whether we can afford high-speed rail in California, it’s a question of whether we can afford not to have it – especially in San Diego.
In the late 1980s, San Diego was looking for a new airport site. As a San Diego port commissioner then, I advocated that high speed rail could be the right alternative. Earlier this year, this newspaper acknowledged San Diego International Airport’s “seam-busting future.” Planners see little potential for San Diego County’s 12 public airports to help alleviate capacity problems, but great potential for high-speed rail to do so. The five top destinations for San Diego travelers are within California – and most of them are along the proposed high-speed rail route.
Planners project that a quarter of San Diego County residents and visitors would switch to high-speed rail for trips to Northern California. San Diego International Airport is expected to reach capacity between 2025 and 2030 – just as high-speed trains are expected to start operating this far south.
In short, we need this system. Some trends are not in dispute. We know that California is growing with estimates of 50 million people by 2030. Those 50 million people – and the goods they need – will have to move around our state.
Meantime, our transportation infrastructure is barely serving our current population.
Californians will not bear the costs of this $43 billion project alone. We did our part in 2008 with the passage of Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure. Beyond that, California already has received more federal funding for high speed rail than any other state, $3.6 billion, and we stand an excellent chance to receive more within the next few months. Additionally, the Obama administration has announced a plan to dedicate $53 billion more to high-speed rail over the next six years.
These are significant steps and they are exactly the signals the private sector needs to become involved. For years, companies have been telling the California High-Speed Rail Authority directly that they want to be part of our project because they expect it to not only be viable, but also profitable.
A recent call by the authority for expressions of interest gave the private sector – from the self-employed entrepreneur to the multinational corporation – a chance to submit their intentions in writing. Responses were voluntary and not a required part of the bidding process. We received 1,100 responses in five weeks. Virgin Rail Group was one: “This is an opportunity to which VRG is prepared to commit substantial resources to. We believe that California is a market very well-suited to high-speed rail.” Skanska USA was another: “We are excited for the opportunity to participate on such a monumental project.”
The procurement process is expected to begin late this year and work on the initial segment – 120 miles through the Central Valley – late next year. That segment will form the backbone of a system running from Sacramento to San Diego.
The 1,100 responses suggest we need not fear a shortage of private investment because private investors do not fear a shortage of riders.
We are updating our business plan with estimates of ridership that will take into account variables, including fuel costs, airline reactions, train schedules and more. Now that the project is taking clearer shape, early estimates of ridership will shift – as expected. No credible expert has ever said California’s ridership numbers are wrong; our experts say they’re reasonable – but the public has a right to be confident in those figures. A few months ago a peer review panel of experts from California and around the world looked at our ridership estimates. They found not incorrect conclusions, but that the firm we used didn’t document the process as fully as it could have. That is being fixed now.
The key point is that ridership models are just that – models. We can ask people hypothetical questions about their willingness to ride, but common sense and the experience of other nations tell us that when it is built, people will use it.
Californians have demonstrated their support for this project repeatedly. We have the will and the support from corporate boardrooms to the White House to make it a reality.
Schenk, an attorney, has served on the California High-Speed Rail Authority board since 2003. She was the first woman elected to Congress to represent a San Diego district.
