It was discovered yesterday that the highly criticized ridership numbers in the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) newest business plan are also not valid. Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), requested back up data from the company that prepared the estimate, Cambridge Systematic (CS), so she could analyze the methods and model of the ridership study; and in doing so made the discovery. This is different from the question about the high ridership numbers. The newest findings are about the mathematical formulas and logic behind the numbers and how they were applied.
Example: Would a business traveler be willing to take a train if the schedule changed from once an hour to every thirty minutes, even if train took more than twice as long as before? The formula used in all the ridership forecasts says yes. This results in higher ridership numbers used by HSR.
The ridership study was ordered and paid for by the Metropolitan Transit (MTC)* who in turn hired Cambridge. In a letter dated January 29, 2010, CS stated MTC chose not to update the model even though key data had changed. See CARRD’s website for more details. http://www.calhsr.com/resources/ridership-forecast/
Alexis said, "If the data had not been hidden from the public view, standard industry practices would have invalidated the results years ago." She also stated in a state Senate meeting, January 19th that the study was being used by Stanford University students as a lesson in what not to do.
"What we do know is there are lots of questions to be asked and answered," said Alexis, a trained economist.
Why are these numbers so important? Several reasons:
1. The numbers are the basis for state-wide environmental studies
2. It determines the routes for the train system
3. It is essential in measuring if the system is profitable, required by law
4. It justifies the construction of HSR by demonstrating sufficient ridership to attract private investment
Though any part of the state could have incorrect numbers and conclusions, of particular interest is the San Francisco Bay area and the analysis of Pacheco Pass vs. Altamont. The numbers look funny.
In March 2007 Cambridge forecast ridership at 65 million interregional passengers via Pacheco and 69 million via Altamont. Then in August 2007 Cambridge released their final forecast and they have 70 million via Pacheco and 65 million via Altamont.
As a bit of history, Altamont was hailed as the best route by environmentalists and by many cities in the state. It was the front runner as a route for the Bay area. Then inexplicably after 2000, Altamont dropped off the radar screen. Using Pacheco makes San Jose’s Diridon station a major hub since all trains will come through that station. The station is named after current HSRA board member, Rod Diridon.
Unfortunately last month, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) did not restrict or block funding for the High Speed Rail project despite a scathing report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and massive public outcry concerning the poor quality of the newest business plan. And now we have evidence of faulty ridership data.
Rather than the JLBC being required to vote in a public meeting granting the funding, it was only necessary for the JLBC to do nothing. Without a directive to the State Finance Department, the money flows freely so it will be June until the funding question for High Speed Rail will resurface.
Perhaps with flaws disclosed on the Ridership Survey, JLBC may reconsider their passive acceptance to fund HSR.
Perhaps basing the state environmental work on faulty data will stall the stimulus funds award.
Perhaps someone will come to their senses.
*both Rod Diridon and Judge Quentin Kopp served on the MTC.
Comments
Yeah this is like building another sports complex or shopping mall. The assumption being, people will spend the little money they have left in these hard times to buy a ticket. A better approach would be to invest in projects that can build sustainable jobs not one time sugar highs. We need more manufacturing and agricultural jobs, and less Asian junk. A high speed rail to compete with our highway system is fool hearty right now because it doesn't produce a long term economic benefit unless it can be used for freight transport. Building out our water infrastructure and free energy solutions are two very good examples of how we can gain in the long term. Manned space exploration, and learning how to build new ecosystems in lifeless places will allow us to grow beyond this resource constrained, politically corrupt planet. I don't think a high speed rail competing with highways and airplanes will do anything for California. It will just shift riders around. So lets get real.
the report is from an anti high speed rail nimby group in palo alto..there goal is to stop HSR because it runs near them..HSR will be a huge benfit to this state no matter what projected ridership numbers and they will be profitable no matter what spin these people post about the studies
Jay, I saw the letter myself, CARRD did not make this up, Cambridge admits that the MTC chose to leave out data. I even brought it up at the HSRA Board meeting in San Diego this week, and nobody denied it.
Why is it that anytime you disagree with a position y'all lob the NIMBY bomb into the argument? Discuss the issues and quit namecalling. The project is based on junk science.
Thanks for the propaganda southwest airlines.
They are NIMBYS thats whats behind all the all crying and making up all these 'terrible' findings..WHO CARES it will still be huge advantage to our state
Kathy Hamilton is a Nimby (Peninsula Furniture store owner?). On nearly every article she writes, she tries sling a new piece of mud hoping something will stick.
let's breat down this ridership projection:
california will have over 40 million people by the time this train is built in 2020. do we really think that it's unresonable for the people in the state to use HSR about 1.6times a YEAR? think of all the commuters that will take the train daily. crude price has gone up 3x since 2000 to $70, and its not unreasonable to think it'll go up significantly more with China now being the worlds largest auto market due to rising wealth. Do you really think that $49 southwest ticket from LA-SF will be there in 10 years? cost of operating high speed rail is decoupled from crude oil price and will likely be much lower than air. Look at Taiwan as an example: domestic flights across taiwan, about 2/3 the size of HSR portion of California, has disappeared because HSR is more competitiv
If you support HSR, you should support an open, transparent and honest process to ensure that this project is "done right." ALL Californians should be asking for a business plan that makes sense (we will be paying for this after all). Even the die hard supports admit their are issues with the business plan - that should tell you something!
ALL of us should ask for a truly independent ridership study on which both the capacity of the system and the business plan should be based. And ALL of us should be calling for politics to stay out of these decisions. Politicians will come and go - but this project will be here for our future generations. If you support HSR, then you should heed the call for honesty, integrity and an open system where all decisions are made visible.
You may disagree with those calling for the facts - but once they are revealed, you can't ignore them. Let's apply pressure to make them do this right. We can all agree to that.
Jay, the report is not from CARRD, the memo is from Cambridge Systematics, the contractor responsible for ridership studies. It states very clearly that MTC left their numbers out of the final ridership reports. I have seen a VERY pro-rail blogger publicly state that he thinks this is bad enough to send someone to jail over. That is not NIMBY, that is from someone who spends a lot of time advocating FOR the project, and even he sees the writing on the wall. How is it that if we object, with good cause, you resort to name calling. What name do we have for those who insist on pushing forward with a bad idea that costs us money we do not have? You call US emotional, at least we cite facts and reports and statistics, with sources. Where are your sources for this being a good plan? Give me more than emotion, give me information and let's discuss the issues! Otherwise you are wasting our time here.
I hate people who post anonymously, so let me say that "put up or shut up" was supposed to be a title, and was posted by Colony Rabble, AKA Cynthia Ward of Anaheim, CA. Sorry for the confusion.
If I say it, I have the stones to put my name on it. How about you?
And Ward ..DONT waste the rest of our time with your ranting about horror facts.these people are NIMBYS like you and hold back progress away from CA/USA they like you moved next to railroad tracks..your "FREE" choice..now back to building this system
no
High Speed Rail is a great CONCEPT but the current rail authority is not qualified to do it right. There is no certified environmental process, no viable business plan, poor ridership estimates, and most importantly, no money! Thanks to Kathy Hamilton and others like her who are doing their best to wake us up before we end up with a partially built train to nowhere.
The passing of Prop 1a tells us there is a general consensus that HSR is needed for the future of California. The problem is the way this particular project was conceived and sold to the public. Whether you are for or against HSR, the language of Prop 1a and statute AB3034, and the realities of this HSR project are at direct odds with each other. Short of an unlikely, huge and prolonged capital investment by our indebted Federal Government, it cannot operate without subsidy as required by the law. In addition, in order to use Federal stimulus money, the project has to start in 2012, which means the CHSRA has to switch to construction mode next year. With little time left, most of the nuts and bolts details have yet to be studied. The costs will rise in every community all along the route, as finally admitted by CHSRA Chairman Curt Pringle at the January 19th Senate Hearing. HSR isn't doable under the law at $43B, let alone at whatever final price it reaches.
"Kathy Hamilton is a Nimby (Peninsula Furniture store owner?). On nearly every article she writes, she tries sling a new piece of mud hoping something will stick."
Kathy Hamilton may be a worthless dolt, but the newest charges have been levied by a woman with four years of graduate econometrics at Stanford.
Kathy Hamilton deserves credit for alerting the Bay Area to a significant flaw in the high-speed rail project's financial justification. High-speed rail might work in California, but it won't if the technical analysis is rigged to show that trains are more popular than alternatives. What investment bank is going to take the project seriously after this?
Despite Obama's support of high-speed rail, California’s hapless overpriced project has no chance of becoming reality if its promoters undermine public confidence in their plans by secretly fudging the numbers, then getting caught at it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!